alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth *

Circuit, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-1999EA

_____________

Jimmy Hampton, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Social Security, *

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: November 20, 1998

Filed: November 27, 1998 

_____________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and HALL, Circuit Judges. *

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Jimmy Hampton appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment

upholding the Commissioner's decision to deny Hampton disability insurance benefits

and supplemental security income. Having carefully reviewed the administrative record

and the parties' submissions, we conclude that no error of fact or law appears and that

an opinion would lack precedential value. We thus affirm the judgment of the district

court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 208

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and implement 

a plan to provide security for cargo entering the United States or 

being transported in intrastate or interstate commerce. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23, 2003

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop 

and implement a plan to provide security for cargo entering the United States or being transported in intrastate 

or interstate commerce.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF 

4 CARGO SECURITY PLAN. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than March 31, 2003, 

6 the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Secu7 rity shall develop and submit a detailed plan to the Com8 mittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
2

•S 208 IS 

1 Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infra2 structure of the House of Representatives to—

3 (1) ensure the adequacy of security measures 

4 for the transportation of cargo into and in the 

5 United States; and 

6 (2) oversee the implementation, and ensure the 

7 adequacy, of security measures with respect to cargo 

8 at airports and other transportation facilities. 

9 (b) IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERIM AND FINAL

10 PLAN.—

11 (1) FINAL PLAN.—Not later than March 31, 

12 2004, the Under Secretary for Border and Trans13 portation Security shall fully implement a plan to 

14 ensure cargo security for all cargo entering the 

15 United States or cargo moving in intrastate or inter16 state commerce in the United States. 

17 (2) INTERIM CARGO SECURITY MEASURES.—Be18 tween the date of enactment of this Act and March 

19 31, 2004, the Under Secretary for Border and 

20 Transportation Security shall implement the fol21 lowing cargo security measures: 

22 (A) Random screening of at least 5 percent 

23 of cargo at airports and other transportation 

24 facilities. 
3

•S 208 IS 

1 (B) An authentication policy for shippers 

2 to ensure that shippers use documents with 

3 adequate security features to prevent shippers 

4 that are not known to the Federal Government 

5 from shipping cargo under the name of known 

6 shippers. 

7 (C) Regular audits of shippers, freight for8 warders, air carriers, and other entities involved 

9 in aviation shipping in order to ensure full com10 pliance with security procedures and back11 ground checks for cargo handlers. 

12 (D) Development of a training program for 

13 entities that handle cargo to ensure that cargo 

14 is properly handled and to safeguard cargo 

15 from security breaches. 

16 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

17 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 

18 necessary to carry out the provisions of this section and 

19 to ensure that airports and other transportation facilities 

20 have state-of-the-art cargo screening equipment.

Æ
# Jenn Gustetic

Director of Early Stage Innovations and Partnerships

## 						Follow NASA Technology					

          -   
          -   

Ms. Gustetic is a senior executive who architects innovation systems for impact.Currently she is the Director of Early Stage Innovations and Partnerships for NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate. In this role she leads a portfolio of technology programs that engages diverse sources, creativity and innovation across the country, awarding more than $300M in funding annually to universities, small businesses, NASA researchers and individual innovators.  These programs include SBIR/STTR, Technology Transfer, Prizes and Challenges, NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC), Center Innovation Fund, Early Career Initiative, and the Space Technology Research Grants (STRG) Program.

Previously she has served in various program executive roles at NASA HQ, as the Assistant Director for Open Innovation at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and throughout her career has led numerous communities focused on incentive prizes, citizen science, design thinking and the maker movement. She was also a founding co-chair of the Partnership for Public Service’s Innovation Council.

Outside of her government duties, she also serves on the board of trustees of the Van Alen Institute.  She was a future of work research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School from 2017-2019, received an executive education certificate from Stanford University in Venture Capital investing, and was a founding member of the board of advisors of the National Science Policy Network.

Ms. Gustetic holds a bachelors degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Florida and a master’s degree in technology policy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She has published numerous writings on innovation including in the MIT Press, Space Policy Journal, New Space Journal, and Issues in Science and Technology.

## STMD Leadership

				See All                			

Niki Werkheiser
Director of Technology Maturation

Trudy Kortes
Director of Technology Demonstrations

Christopher Baker
Program Executive

Evelyn Vidal-Roles
Office Manager

Catrina Horton
Executive Officer

Dr. Kurt Vogel
Associate Administrator

Prasun Desai
Deputy Associate Administrator

Walter Engelund
Deputy Associate Administrator for Programs

G. Michael Green
Deputy Associate Administrator for Management/Chief of Staff

Derek Wang
Director of Communications

Voleak Roeum
Director of Resources Management

Alesyn Lowry
Director for Strategic Planning and Integration

Michelle Munk
Acting Chief Architect

Jeffrey Sheehy
Chief Engineer

Jenn Gustetic
Director of Early Stage Innovations and Partnerships
#### Lancashire *v.*Quigley’s Exr.

TTew Trial — Affidavit.

The application for a new trial was based upon the affidavit of the administrator of discovery of evidence, and on the statements of the petition denying the cause of action and the consequent ignorance of the administrator as to the defense, and upon affidavits to facts known by the affiant and provable, which tends strongly to disprove the cause of action, and which might have influenced the verdict. *Held,*that the grounds for a new trial were sufficient.

APPEAL EROM m’cRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

June 20, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Marshall:

The appeal from the common-law judgment of Quigley’s Executor *v.*Wm. Lancashire’s Administrator having been submitted at the same time and on the same record with the appeal from the judgment in equity in favor of Quigley’s Executor *v.*Alexander and Lancashire passed on the same common-law judgment; the principal facts involved in both cases are stated in the opinion of this court reversing the judgment in equity, and reference is made to that opinion rendered at the present term.

In the case now before us on the appeal from the common-law judgment, it is only necessary to state by way of explanation that in consequence of the ignorance of the administrator of the facts involved in the common-law action, and the ignorance of Alexander and Lancashire (the only parties really interested in defending it), that such action was pending, a verdict and judgment were rendered against the administrator without his making any real defense and that the motion for a new trial made by the administrator and by the petition of Alexander and Lancashire who also asked that they should be made parties and that the case should be transferred into equity, was overruled, to which exceptions were taken, and that an appeal was prayed on.

The application for a new trial was based upon the affidavit of the administrator of discovery of evidence, and on the statements of the petitioners denying the cause of action and showing their ignorance as above stated, and on accompanying affidavits of several persons stating facts known to and provable by them, which *190tend strongly to disprove the cause of action on which the suit was founded, and which might have influenced the verdict. We are of opinion that the grounds for a new trial were sufficient and that the court erred in overruling the motion to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial. But there are other irregularities in the proceedings at law, and as by amendment of the petition in equity of Quigley’s Executor *v.*Alexander and Lancashire, and the further proceedings detected thereon, the original cause of action will be put in issue for a trial *de*novo, and a judgment may upon sufficient proof be obtained against the administrator for assets as well as against the other parties or their property, it seems to be unnecessary that there should be any further proceedings at law.

Wherefore, the judgment at law in favor of Quigley’s executor against Wm. Lancashire’s administrator is reversed, with directions to dismiss the petition without prejudice and without costs.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF D. C. AND K. C.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
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 April 30, 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: June 9, 2006                
|                                  
|/s/ JOHN BATTY                    
|John Batty Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 10.3.42**MODIFICATIONOF SALARY ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND GREGORY T. NOVAKOnAugust 21, 2006, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors reviewed thecompensation of Gregory T. Novak, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, andrecommended that the independent directors approve an increase in Mr. Novak’s base salary from$475,000 to $500,000. Such increase was approved by the independentdirectors on September 7, 2006. Mr. Novak's salaryarrangement is part of arrangements related to his Amended andRestated EmploymentAgreement dated as of September 28, 2005(filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Company's Current Report onForm 8-K filed October 3, 2005 and incorporated herein by reference).
Reply to Attn of:

National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001

December 2, 2021
General Law Practice Group
TO: Distribution
FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA Employees at the Ansys and
AGI Reception on December 10, 2021

On December 10, 2021, Ansys, Inc. and Analytical Graphics, Inc. (AGI, an ANSYS
company) will hold a reception at the Cosmos Club in Washington, DC, from 7:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m. This event is an informal gathering to discuss space programs. Ansys is in
control of the planning, organizing, and issuing invitations for this event.

Approximately 400 people are expected to attend the event. Attendees will have a diversity
of views or interests and will include personnel from other federal agencies, members of
the legislative branch, and representatives from industry, state and local government
officials, and academia. The estimated cost of the event, including all food and beverages,
is approximately $150 per person. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to
exchange information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the
requirements of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2).

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the
event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and
views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees who do
not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests of AGI and/or Ansys Inc. may
accept an invitation for free attendance for themselves and a guest to attend the event. In
those circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern
that the individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance
of their duties.

However, NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics
pledge under Executive Order 13989 may only attend the reception if they reimburse the
sponsor the fair market value of the event. An honor basket will be provided.

In addition, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting
the interests of the sponsor, such as procurement duties, program management, or
negotiating or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination
from their local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation.


You are reminded of the $20 gift exception at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(a), which provides that
you may accept gifts valued at no more than $20 per occasion (and no more than $50 from
one source in a calendar year). We understand that Ansys Inc. will be distributing a
Mistletoe decoration valued at $1.00. NASA employees in non-career positions who have
signed the ethics pledge may only accept the gift item if they reimburse the sponsor.
Attendees are reminded to exercise any COVID-19 precautions appropriate to their
individual situation.

Koh bo T- Apoan

Adam F. Greenstone
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 Promotora Valle Hermoso, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alexey A. Kim, Chief 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, that to the best of my knowledge: (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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Alexey A. KimAlexey A. KimChief Executive OfficerAugust 7 , 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1995             JUN-30-1995
<CASH>                                         346,501                 346,501
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,423,134               1,423,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,101,034               2,101,034
<PP&E>                                          55,912                  55,912
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,101                  18,101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,827,818               2,827,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,290,338               1,290,227
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           189                     189
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,537,291               1,537,291
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,827,818               2,827,818
<SALES>                                      2,243,707               2,143,198
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,243,707               2,153,697
<CGS>                                        2,010,548               2,061,614
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,552,320               2,330,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,599                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (322,212)               (176,815)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (322,212)               (176,815)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (322,212)               (176,815)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)                   (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)                   (.09)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      10.1**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-8 (Commission File Number 333-13818, Commission File Number 333-114668 and
      Commission File Number 333-135218) pertaining to the Radware Ltd. 1997 Key
      Employee Share Incentive Plan, of our report dated January 28, 2007, with
      respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Radware Ltd., included
      in
      its Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2006, filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission.








/s/
                Kost Forer Gabbay & KasiererTel
                - Aviv, Israel
            KOST
                FORER GABBAY & KASIERERJune
                5, 2007
            A
                Member of Ernst & Young Global
#### Lucy Pendleton’s Admr. *v.*John Pendleton’s Exr.

Antenuptial Contract —• Construction.

John Pendleton in anticipation of marriage with Lucy Miller entered into an antenuptial contract with her in which he stipulates that “ After she becomes his wife she may hire out her own slave, rise the proceeds as she pleases, and that she shall have full power and control over her money and property and dispose of the same as she pleases:” *Held,*That the effect of that instrument is to place the title of the property therein named in his wife after their marriage, with all the rights and powers over same that she would have had if she remained unmarried, and upon her death it went to her personal representative.

APPEAL EROM TODD CIRCUIT COURT.

March 8, 1867.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters:

Tbe paper executed by Lucy Miller on the 3d of October, 1844, in anticipation of her marriage with John Pendleton, and which' was shortly thereafter consummated, is in its character testamentary, and might, if properly probated, be effectual to pass the title to the property to the persons therein named. But the writing executed by John Pendleton on the same day is as alleged in the petition an antenuptial contract by which he stipulates that Lucy Miller after she becomes his wife may hire out her own slaves, use the proceeds as she pleased, and that she shall have full power and control over her money and property (which includes her slaves) and dispose of the same as she pleased.

The effect of that instrument is to place the title of the property therein named in his wife after their marriage, with all the rights and powers over the same that she would have had if she had re*501mained unmarried, and.upon her death her personal representative had a right to reduce the property into his possession for the-payment of debts and distribution.

*Kennedy, Lindseys & Bullock & Davis,*for Appellant.

*Feland & Evans,*for Appellee.

Whether the paper executed by Lucy Miller be a testament in its character or not is not now material. It may never be probated as such, and until that is done it is of no validity. Wherefore, for the reasons suggested the demurrer to the petition was improperly sustained, and the judgment is, therefore, reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to overrule appellee’s demurrer to the petition and for further proceedings in accordance herewith,
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Delgado, Appellant.

[788 NYS2d 370]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Iacovetta, J., at plea; John E Collins, J., at sentence), rendered July 8, 2003, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that he was entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether he violated the terms of his plea agreement is unpreserved since he never requested a hearing or moved to withdraw his plea *(see e.g. People v Battle,*287 AD2d 361 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 751 [2002]), and we decline to review it in *450the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that after a sufficient inquiry into defendant’s explanation for his departure from a drug program, the sentencing court properly determined that defendant violated his plea agreement by leaving the program without obtaining permission or making any effort to return, and by having to be brought back to the court on a bench warrant four months later *(see e.g. People v Villar,*10 AD3d 564 [2004]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.