alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67949-67950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27887]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended 
by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments 
on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, 
for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to 
be used, are being manufactured in the United States.
    Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the 
regulations and

[[Page 67950]]

be postmarked on or before November 24, 2010. Address written comments 
to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 
8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720.
    Docket Number: 10-064. Applicant: The University of Texas at 
Austin, Center for Electromechanics, Pickle Research Campus 10100 
Burnet Road, Bldg. 133, Austin, Texas 78758-4497. Instrument: Hexapod 
Actuators. Manufacturer: ADS International, S.r.l., Italy. Intended 
Use: The instrument will be used on the Hobby-Eberly Telescope for the 
study of ``Dark Energy.'' The instrument is unique because of its 
ability to achieve the desired accuracy of +/- 2 microns, the stiffness 
of 400 N/micron, the end mounts ability to rotate up to +/- 20 degrees 
in two axes and a stiffness of 250 N/micron, is actively cooled, and is 
able to generate 30kN of continuous force for extended periods of time. 
Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same 
general category being manufactured in the United States. Application 
accepted by Commissioner of Customs: October 20, 2010.

    Dated: October 29, 2010.
Gregory Campbell,
Acting Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-27887 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-91339, 333-37730 and 333-100892) of Retek, Inc.
of our report dated January 17, 2003, except as to Note 19 for which the date is
February 6, 2003 and to Note 16 for which the date is February 19, 2003 relating
to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in
this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 11, 2003
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

3

4

2

1

6

7

5

10

9

11

8

12

14

13

16 17

15 20

19

18

22

23

21

26

25

24

28

29

27

Connect the dots and then color the picture!! Connect the dots and color Orville’s picture!!!
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27576]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel HIV, HAART and AGING.
    Date: November 23, 2010.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute On Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Elaine Lewis, PhD, Scientific Review Branch, 
National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, MSC-
9205, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7707. 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#60050c01090e050c05170913200e09014e0e09084e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2f4a434e46414a434a58465c6f41464e0141464701484059">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

    Dated: October 25, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-27576 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of
ATEL Cash Distribution Fund V, L.P. (the Partnership), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2007                       
|                                            
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                      
|Paritosh K. Choksi                          
|Executive Vice President of General Partner.
|Principal Financial Officer of Registrant   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and
will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CABLELINK,
INC. AND SUBSIDARY UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENT.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          42,664
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,907,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                    59,562
<INVENTORY>                                  1,686,545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,095,713
<PP&E>                                       1,949,650
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,095,045
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,305,567
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,848,473
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,452,507
<OTHER-SE>                                     799,492
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,305,567
<SALES>                                      4,331,464
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,332,474
<CGS>                                        3,268,808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,066,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                252,302
<INCOME-TAX>                                    54,251
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   198,051
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

</TABLE>
#### Grimes *v.*Alsop.

Thursday, *November*28.

A plea putting in issue matters of fact and of record should conclude to the country; and the issue should be tried by a jury.

A matter of fact, improperly alleged in pleading to be a matter of record, may be referred to a jury.

ERROR to the *Carroll*Circuit Court.

Dewet, J.

— Covenant on the warranties in a deed of bargain and sale. The declaration sets out a covenant of seisin, a covenant that the premises conveyed were free from incumbrance, and a covenant for quiet enjoyment; alleges that the defendant was not seised; that the premises were not free from incumbrance ; and that the defendant had not secured the plaintiff in the quiet enjoyment of the premises; and then avers that, at the time of the execution and delivery of the deed, there was an unsatisfied judgment against the defendant, on which an execution was afterwards issued, by virtue of which the sheriff sold the premises to a third person, who evicted the plaintiff. There is no averment of *prout patet per recorclum.*The defendant pleaded, that there was no record of the judgment, the execution, or the sheriff’s sale as set out in the declaration ; that the plaintiff had not been evicted; that the defendant was lawfully seised; that the premises were free from incumbrance ; and that the defendant had defended the plaintiff in quiet possession. The plea has no clause of verification, nor does it conclude either to the Court or country. The plaintiff replied that there was a record of the judgment, the execution, and the sheriff’s sale; that the plaintiff was evicted; and that the premises were not free from incumbrance ; concluding with a verification by the record. There was a jury trial; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

It is contended that the trial should have been by the Court, and that submitting the issue to the jury was erroneous.

There was not much attention paid to accuracy of pleading in the declaration, the plea, or the.replication. The declaration, however, substantially assigns a- breach of the covenants against incumbrance, and for quiet enjoyment. In doing so,- it alleges both matter of record.and of fact. The *270sheriff’s sale, at least, is of the latter description, and could proved only by his deed, which was not a matter of record. The plea denies, in substance, all the allegations of the declaration in assigning the breach, and, of course, puts in issue both matter of record and matter of fact. A plea of this character should conclude to the country and be tried by a jury. 1 Chitt. Pl. 556, 558. The replication is nothing but a repetition of the declaration, except that it improperly avers that the sheriff’s sale was a matter of record, and refers it to the Court for trial. But this improper averment does not affect the validity of the trial by the jury. *Brown*v. *Van*Deuzer, 10 Johns. 51.

*A. L.*Robinson, for the plaintiff.

*D. D. Pratt,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is affirmed with costs.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**




**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 Scivanta Medical Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Thomas S.
      Gifford, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of
      the
      Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of §13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §78m or 78o(d), and,




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


January
              23, 2008
            By:
            /s/
              Thomas S. GiffordThomas
                S. GiffordExecutive
                Vice President,
                Chief
                  Financial Officer and
                Secretary
www.nasa.gov

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Answer Key

1. What is the total weight of the satellite?

Take the subtotals of the weights of each group of components:

200 kg × 1 structure = 200 kg

20 kg × 3 cameras = 60 kg

12 kg × 4 solar panels = 48 kg

57 kg × 2 batteries = 114 kg

90 kg × 2 computers = 180 kg

42 kg × 1 radio transmitter = 42 kg

Then add the subtotals together:

200 kg + 60 kg + 48 kg + 114 kg + 180 kg + 42 kg 

= 644 kg total weight

2. Optical transmitters, which use lasers instead of

radio waves to downlink more data, weigh less and

need less power. If the lighter optical transmitter

weighs 7 kg, how much less does it weigh than the

radio transmitter?

Subtract the weight of the optical transmitter from the weight of

the radio transmitter:

42 kg – 7 kg = 35 kg 

The optical transmitter weighs 35 kg less than the 

radio transmitter. 

3. If we remove the radio transmitter and replace it with

an optical transmitter, what is the new total weight of

the satellite?

You could arrive at this answer a couple of different ways,

either by recalculating the weight of the entire satellite or by

subtracting the difference between the two transmitters from the

initial weight.

The new total weight of the satellite is 609 kg.

4. Since our new optical transmitter uses less power, we

can also remove one solar panel and one battery.

a. What is the new total weight of the satellite?

You could approach this problem a few ways. One example

follows, repeating the previous steps by taking subtotals of the

weight of each group of components:

200 kg × 1 structure = 200 kg

20 kg × 3 cameras = 60 kg

12 kg × 3 solar panels = 36 kg

57 kg × 1 battery = 57 kg

90 kg × 2 computers = 180 kg

7 kg × 1 optical transmitter = 7 kg

Then add the subtotals together:

200 kg + 60 kg + 36 kg + 57 kg + 180 kg + 7 kg 

= 540 kg total new weight

b. How much weight have we removed since we

started?

Subtract old weight from the new weight:

644 kg – 540 kg = 104 kg 

The modified satellite weighs 104 kg less than the 

first satellite. 

NASA Space Communications 

and Navigation

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.4.MD.A.2

INSTRUCTOR’S GUIDE

Measurement and Conversion of Measurements GRADES 3–5

For more activities like this, visit: 

https://go.nasa.gov/LaserCommSTEMResources.

Additional educational activities can be found here: 

https://go.nasa.gov/ESCEducationResources.

For more opportunities to explore STEM at NASA, 

visit: https://www.nasa.gov/stem.

Do you have feedback on this activity? Email us at 

gsfc-scan-engagement@mail.nasa.gov.
www.nasa.gov

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA’s Strategic Capabilities Assets Progra

NASA Marshall Space Fl

Sunspot Thermal Vacuum Test

Sunspot is a 12-foot thermal vacuum facility located at the NASA Marshall Space Flight

Center Environmental Test Facility (ETF) in Huntsvill

Sunspot is extremely valuable in providing thermal vacuum testing for private industry; 

DOD; and NASA programs such as the Space Shuttle, Spacelab, the Hubble Spac

Telescope, Burst And Transient Source Experiment (BATSE), Chandra, the Intern

Space Station (ISS), the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), and Ku-Band. Sunsp

has been NASA’s workhorse chamber for 33 years. 

Large test articles may be lowered into Sunspot through the top of the chamber via an

overhead crane. Man-door access is provided via a 10,000 (ISO Class 7) clean roo

Sunspot is a vertically oriented stainless steel cylindrical vessel. The overall dimensions

are 12 feet in diameter by 15 feet tall, with the internal shroud reducing the test 

article area to 10 feet in diameter by 12 feet tall. Instrumentation available includes 

thermocouples, temperature-controlled quartz crystal microbalances (TQCM), and

residual gas analyzer (RGA). Thermal conditions are met with a full liquid nitrogen shrou

(to -195 °C); infrared (IR) lamps provide heating (to +200 °C). One maglev turbopu

provides vacuum to 1 x 10-6 Torr. The pumping system for Sunspot includes one 52-inc

cryopump and one maglev turbopump.

Facility Capa

Overall dimension 12 feet in diameter x 15 feet tall

Test article area 10 feet in diameter x 12 feet tall

Data system Pacrats

IFIX

Temperature range -170 oC to +200 oC

Pressure 1 x 10-6 Torr

Thermocouples 180

LN2

 shroud Yes

Lamps Nine zones, 6x 1,600-watt IR bulbs each

RGA Yes

TQCM Yes

Internal camera IR and color

Viewports Three (one is IR compatible)

Facility application Commercial, military, and NASA programs

CONTACT

http://ed.msfc.nasa.gov/etf/index.html

Manuel Schult

NASA Marshall Space Flight Cent

(256) 544-5465

E-mail: Manuel.V.Schultz@nasa.go

NF-2010-10-518-H
#### STATE v. WHITE

No. 94A94-3

Case below: Mecklenburg County Superior Court

Application by defendant for writ of habeas corpus denied 16 August 2001. Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, denied 20 August 2001. Motion by defendant for stay of execution of judgment denied 20 August 2001. (See also *White v. Easley,*infra)
#### The State *v.*Kennedy.

*Saturday, July*27.

A person indicted for an assault and battery with intent to murder, may be found guilty of a simple assault and battery.

ERROR to the *Jefferson*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

— This was an indictment for an assault and battery with intent to murder. ' Plea, not guilty. Yerdict as follows : “We the jury find the defendant not guilty of the felonious intent to murder, but guilty of an assault and battery as he stands charged in the indictment; and we assess, his fine at ten dollars, and that he be imprisoned in the county jail for ten days.” The Court, on motion of the defendant, set aside that part of the verdict which finds him guilty, and gave judgment that he should be discharged.

It is a general rule, that where the accusation, as in the case before us, includes an offence of inferior degree, the jury may discharge the defendant of the higher crime and convict him of the inferior one. 1 Chitt. C. L. 638. Thus, on an indictment for murder, the defendant may be found guilty of manslaughter, and on an indictment for burglary and stealing goods, or on an indictment for robbery, the prisoner may be found guilty only of the simple larceny. 1 Phill. Ev. 203. In England, it is true, the defendant could not, previously to a recent statute, have been found guilty of a misdemeanor on an indictment for felony, because if he could have been thus found guilty, he would have lost several privileges which, on an indictment for the misdemeanor, the law gave him. 1 Chitt. C. L. *639.*—Rex v. *Westbeer,*2 Strange, 1133, *But*this reason for talcing such case out of the general rule to which we have referred, does not exist in this state, — there being here no privilege to which the defendant is entitled when charged with a misdemeanor, which he may not claim when indicted for a felony ; and *cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex.*

We think, therefore, that the jury had a right, on this indictment for felony, to find the defendant guilty of the inferior offence of assault and battery included in the accusation, and to acquit him of the rest. The cases of *Stewart*v. *The*
      *234
      *State of*Ohio, 5 Hamm. 241, and *The State*v. Stedman, 7 Porter, 495, are in point.

*H.*O'Neal, for the state.

*J. G.*Marshall, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment setting aside part of the verdict, and discharging the defendant, is reversed with costs. Cause remanded with instructions to render judgment on the verdict.
<PAGE>   1
FRESH CHOICE, INC.                                                  EXHIBIT 11.1
COMPUTATIONS OF NET INCOME PER COMMON AND EQUIVALENT SHARE
(In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             Twelve Weeks Ended                  Thirty-Six Weeks Ended
                                      --------------------------------        --------------------------------
                                      September 7,        September 8,        September 7,        September 8,
                                          1997                1996                1997                1996
                                      ------------        ------------        ------------        ------------
<S>                                   <C>                 <C>                 <C>                 <C>
Net income (loss)                        $1,065              $  329              $  649              $  (442)
                                         ======              ======              ======              =======

Weighted average
common shares outstanding                 5,669               5,646               5,664                5,619

Common share equivalents                  1,191                  18               1,191                    -
                                         ------              ------              ------              -------

Shares used in computation                6,860               5,664               6,855                5,619
                                         ======              ======              ======              =======

Net loss per
common and equivalent share              $ 0.16              $ 0.06              $ 0.09              $ (0.08)
                                         ======              ======              ======              =======
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



We, David W. Heard and Kent Coker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Annual Report of Somera Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report of Somera Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K /A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Somera Communications, Inc.



By:

/s/    DAVID W. HEARDName: David W. HeardTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)Date: July 11, 2005By:

/s/    KENT COKERName: Kent CokerTitle: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)Date: July 11, 2005