alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Deep Space Food Challenge

Deep Space Food Challenge (2021) – Megan McArthur, a Hawaii-born oceanographer and engineer who spent seven months aboard the International Space Station in 2021, poses with fresh avocados and peppers in zero gravity. NASA’s Deep Space Food Challenge helps astronauts like McArthur have tasty, nutritious, renewable food systems while in space. 

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/deep-space-food-challenge-3/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTags- Centennial Challenges
Image CreditNASASize2048x1365pxThe 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:								  								Jun 20, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								  									Beth Ridgeway								 
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
Exhibit 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-109410) and S-8 (No. 333-36246, No. 333-47720, No. 333-107359 and No.333-129460) of SINA Corporation of our report dated March 15, 2006 relating to the financial statements, 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.*/S/ PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian CPAs Limited Company*PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian CPAs Limited CompanyBeijing, the People’s Republic of ChinaMarch 15, 2006
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Newtek Business Services, Inc. (the “Company”), for the period endedDecember 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Sloane, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge: 

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company. 

 

March 15, 2010
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FELIX VILAPLANA.

February 27, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
NO, $ CRIMINAL mfV-WPEAlS 

## $ APPEALSOFTEXAS ^2flf5 V. THE STAE OF TEXAS MOTION TO SUSPEND RULE 9.3(b) TO THE HONORABLE OCURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS: 

### NOW COMES, Alfred Lee Rice, appellant respectfully presenting this foregoing motion to suspend rule 9.3(b) which wouldrequire him to send (ll)-copies of his Petition For Discretionar\C|R&vieM, 

### a n u- . ^ -j j n COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS and allow his to be required to send only one copy of his (PDR), VIM 90 ?l315 

### and in support present's the following in support; ^y " 

## 1). Appellantdoes nothave access to acopymachine, andj^hgtgejgierk no way to obtain copies here on the unit. uc 2). Appellant does not have the funds to pay for out-side service to pay to have copies made, nor does he have the funds if such services were available. 

### '3}7-~Appellant is*appealing a couviction fron the 142th District Court, Midland County, cause number is Cr41989t and he appealed to the 11th Court of Appeals cause #ll-13-00302-CR. Appellant respectfully present's this motion, and ask the court 

# tograntappellant'srequest. RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTED

ED LEE RICE#1888258
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

# AbQ^costa,ClBrk

I certify the a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was sent to the Court of Appeals for the 11th District. .~
ALFRED LEE RICE #1888258

(1) ALKEN POLUNSKY UNIT 3872 F.M. 350 South LIVINGSTON, TEX. 77351
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of WorldStar Energy,  Corp. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ended  December  31,  2005,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Kinley, President of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that: a)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and b) The information contained in this Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


                                            /s/ M. W. KINLEY
                                            ----------------
                                            Michael Kinley
                                            President

                                            May 17, 2006

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  WorldStar  Energy,  Corp.  and will be retained by the company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Each of the undersignedhereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual Report onForm 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

This 13th dayof April, 2006.

 

 
|   | /s/ Randolph C.  Kohn                         |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   | Randolph C. Kohn                              |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer                      |
|   | (Principal  Executive Officer)                |
|   |                                          |
|   |                                          |
|   | /s/ James L.  Pate III                        |
|   | James L. Pate,  III                           |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer                      |
|   | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. 1350**

|   | (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                Registrant as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the                report. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                            |                               |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|        |                                                                                 | /s/              Peter B. Jacobson |
|   | Peter              B. Jacobson                                                  |
|   | Chief              Executive Officer (Principal Executive              Officer) |

----
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class         Interest       Principal           Losses            Balance
<S>             <C>              <C>               <C>               <C>
A1          4117893.58        6575210.5                0       753651296.81
APO                  0         59026.07                0         9517057.92
AR                0.54              100                0                  0
B1            45274.26         28022.62                0         8330301.01
B2            17247.33         10675.29                0         3173448.01
B3             12935.5          8006.47                0            2380086
B4             8623.67          5337.64                0            1586724
B5             6467.75          4003.23                0            1190043
B6             6489.11          2586.81          1429.62         1193972.34


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

SPORT-HALEY, INC.

CERTIFICATION

I, Donald W. Jewell, Interim Chief Executive Officer of Sport-Haley, Inc., certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Sport-Haley, Inc.;

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) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



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):



Date:
February 25, 2005

|/s/DONALD W. JEWELLDonald W. Jewell
Interim Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |  |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 

---



QuickLinks
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov
# ~ -.··/'1 " \\ P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION , \ r' 

### '0.\V'--Y j AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

. .

## ~ \r0J '-'\"\ \ ./

I ,. /\) '0

## '~\~

# ~s-u. \ ..-......._., 

# "

# ~~:~~~FBTUE~~SS**·~~** PENALTY FOR

## ~g.+. PRIVATE USE 

## :3 a,."T. a:!!: o.u.



### RE: WR-81 ,830-01

### ~~**~~-** UTF l 

### l j 

### • ·u

### \~ ·.**·:~**

li 

# J
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2010 

s0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

141205 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141205 

 COA: 290187 

 Berrien CC: 2008-411644-FC 

MARK ALLEN SELLERS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 27, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** 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. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 10/9/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

THOMAS FRANK DISTEFANO,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-1178

(D.C. No. 95-M-3163)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Distefano moved to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and

sought the return of forfeited property on double jeopardy grounds. We have reviewed

the district court’s order, which is further supported by United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct.

2135 (1996) and our decision in United States v. German, 76 F.3d 315 (10th Cir. 1996),

and find no reversible error. We deny Mr. Distefano a certificate of appealability now
- 2 -

required by statute and dismiss the appeal for want of a “substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B), (2); Lennox v. Evans, 87 F.3d

431, 433-34 (10th Cir. 1996).

APPEAL DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.8a


                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                       NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

         This First Amendment to the Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement (this
"Amendment") is made and entered into as of the 4th day of January, 2000 by and
between Sovereign Specialty Chemicals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company") and Robert B. Covalt (the "Optionee").

         WHEREAS, the Company granted the Optionee a stock option to purchase
shares of Company Common Stock pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Sovereign Specialty Chemicals, Inc. Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") and the
Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement, dated as of December 29, 1999 (the "Option
Agreement"). Capitalized terms not expressly defined herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Plan and the Option Agreement; and

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.1 of the Plan, the Committee appointed
to administer the Plan, with the consent of the Optionee, desires to amend the
Option Agreement as set forth in this Agreement to correct a mistake.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually
acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1.   Section 2.1 of the Option Agreement shall be amended and restated in
     its entirety as follows:


     "Subject to Section 4 hereof, the Option shall become vested and
     exercisable with respect to 1/16th of the number of shares of Common Stock
     covered thereby on each March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31
     commencing March 31, 2000 and ending on December 31, 2003."

2.   Other than as expressly provided herein, all other terms and provisions of
     the Option Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

3.   This Amendment shall be effective as of December 29, 1999.

4.   This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which
     when so executed and delivered will be deemed an original, and such
     counterparts together will constitute one instrument.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as
of the date first above written.

                                     SOVEREIGN SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC.


                                       By:_____________________________________
                                            Brian R. Hoesterey, Vice President



                                          _____________________________________
                                            Robert B. Covalt
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of
Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Edward J. Quilty, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc.,
hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009
of Derma Sciences, Inc. (the Form 10-Q) upon my best knowledge and belief
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Derma Sciences,
Inc.

|                          |                                                                                                                | 
|------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Dated:  November 12, 2009 | /s/ Edward J. Quilty                                                                                           | 
|                          | Edward J. Quilty
        Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer) |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6028

WILLIE MAYERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF CHAPIN POLICE DEPARTMENT; MAYOR OF

CHAPIN; JAMES METTS, Sheriff in his individual

and official capacity; LEXINGTON COUNTY

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-97-1299-3-19BD)

Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 9, 1998

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Mayers, Appellant Pro Se. Wilburn Brewer, Jr., Thomas C.R.

Legare, Jr., NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court order dismissing his

claims against the Lexington County Sheriff's Department ("LCSD"),

substituting Sheriff James Metts as a party defendant in place of

LCSD, and allowing Appellant to proceed with his claim against

Sheriff Metts in his individual capacity. He also challenges the

district court order denying appointment of counsel. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here

appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or

collateral orders.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
No. 15,407.

#### Poole *v.*McGahan.

*Evidence,*— Admission *of without Objection.*— "Where evidence is admitted without objection error can not be predicated upon such admission.

From the Marion Circuit Court.

*R. Hill, M. S. Bright*and *G. W. Spahr,*for appellant.

*C. P. Jacobs*and *J. P. Baker,*for appellee.

Berkshire, J.

This is an action to declare and enforce a parol trust to certain letters patent issued to one John S. Smith. The complaint alleges that the patentee assigned the said letters patent to the appellee and that he assigned the same to the appellant; that the assignment, though absolute upon its face, was without consideration and in trust.

There was no demurrer filed to the complaint, and the answer was but the general denial.

The court tried the cause without a jury and returned a finding for the appellee.

The appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was *584overruled'by the court and he reserved an exception and judgment was rendered in accordance with the finding.

Filed May 17, 1890;

petition for a rehearing overruled Sept. 18, 1890.

The only specification in the assignment of error which is available to the appellánt is the second — error of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial.

The only reason found in the motion which presents any question for us to consider is the first — the finding of the-court is not supported by the evidence.

The appellee’s argument relates to the fourth cause found' in the motion — error of the court in allowing the appellee to introduce parol evidence to prove the alleged parol trust. But no question is presented by this reason, because the admitted evidence was not objected to on the trial. *Judd*v. *Small,*107 Ind. 398; *Stockwell*v. *State, ex rel.,*101 Ind. 1; *City of Evansville*v. *Martin,*103 Ind. 206; *McFadden*v. *Fritz,*110 Ind. *1; Compton*v. *Ivey,*59 Ind. 352.

If the evidence was incompetent it' was because of its quality and not that it did not tend to prove the facts alleged in the complaint. The evidence having been admitted without objection, it was before the court for its consideration.

*~We*have examined the évidence and find that it supports the finding.

There is no error in the record.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### The State *v.*Ross.—In error.

*Thursday, December*26

AN indictment for gaming need not state the name of the game played. *The State*v. Maxwell, *5*Blackf. 230.
#### Baird *v.*Thayer.—In error.

ASSUMPSIT by *Martin Thayer,*assignee of *Isaac Fisher,*against *Joseph Baird*on an instrument of writing as follows, which was assigned by *Fisher*to the plaintiff: “ Rec’d *May,*1840, of *W. B. Tapscott*one carriage to sell, and pay the amount over to *Isaac Fisher*when collected, which carriage I have sold on time, and did agree to pay the amount of said carriage (one hundred and forty-five dollars) as above stated to *Isaac Fisher*by the express order of the above-named *Tapscott. Joseph Baird’.” Held,*that the instrument contained no promise on which an action would lie. *Ephraims et al.*v. *Murdock, 1*Blackf. 10.