alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Closeup of LDEF experiment trays documented during STS-32 photo survey

Closeup of Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) experiment trays is documented during STS-32 retrieval activity and photo survey conducted by crewmembers onboard Columbia, Orbiter Vehicle (OV) 102. Partially visible is the Polymer Matrix Composite Materials Experiment. In the background is the surface of the Earth.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-s32-77-058/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenJanuary 20, 1990ProducerJSCSize1903x1920pxPIA Numbers32-77-058The 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:								  								Apr 07, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 13, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

REGENERATIVE SCIENCES, INC.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG

ADMINISTRATION; FRANK TORTI,

M.D., in his official capacity as

Commissioner of the United States Food

and Drug Association; MARY A.

MALARKEY, in her official capacity as

Director of the Office of Compliance and

Biologics Quality Center for Biologics

Evaluation and Research; UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES; CHARLES

E. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as

Acting Secretary of the United States

Department of Health and Human

Services,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-1125

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-00411-WYD-BNB) 

ORDER

Appellant’s motion to dismiss this matter is granted. 10th Cir. R. 27.3(A)(9).

Appellate Case: 10-1125 Document: 01018477231 Date Filed: 08/13/2010 Page: 1 
2

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

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1125 Document: 01018477231 Date Filed: 08/13/2010 Page: 2
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2050

To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 

Act of 2001 with respect to the affordable education provisions of such 

Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2004

Mr. GRASSLEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the affordable 

education provisions of such Act, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 2050 IS 

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF APPLICABILITY OF SUNSET OF THE 

2 ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF REC3 ONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 WITH RESPECT TO 

4 AFFORDABLE EDUCATION PROVISIONS OF 

5 SUCH ACT. 

6 Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

7 Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the 

8 end the following new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(c) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

10 the amendments made by subtitles A, B, and C of title 

11 IV (relating to affordable education provisions).’’. 

12 SEC. 2. PERMANENT DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES 

13 OF SCHOOL TEACHERS. 

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 62(a)(2)(D) of the Inter15 nal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain expenses 

16 of elementary and secondary school teachers) is amended 

17 by striking ‘‘In the case of taxable years beginning during 

18 2002 or 2003, the deductions’’ and inserting ‘‘The deduc19 tions’’. 

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

21 this section shall apply to expenses paid or incurred after 

22 December 31, 2003.

Æ
#### Geo. Hayden *v.*W. D. Craig et al.

Horse Left in Lieu of Another Taken by Military Order.

The horse left in lieu of one taken by military order became the property of the owner of the one taken, when accepted, and is not subject to lawful military capture.

Where a horse is taken under military order and against the owner’s will, and converted to an officer’s private use, he is liable for its value.

APPEAL PROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

March 8, 1867.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Hardin :

Although the mare in controversy may have been owned by Ford and used by him as a soldier in the army of the so-styled Confederate States in the war with the United States, if he abandoned her on the appellant’s premisos intending that appellant might have her in lieu of bis horse at the same time taken out of his possession by Ford without his consent and against his will, and the appellant thereafter accepted, kept, and claimed the mare as his own property, she was not, while so held and claimed by him, the subject of lawful military capture. And if Craig without compulsion, although with tbe consent of Mathy, his superior officer, took her from appellant against his will, by the war of military force under his control, and converted her to his private use the appellant was entitled to recover against him; and if he and Hally jointly converted her to their use, both of them became liable to such recovery. Tbe ruling of the court as to the instructions given and refused seems to us to have been materially *223in conflict with this view of the law of the case, and is, therefore, deemed erroneous.

Therefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial and further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL RICHARDS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 574 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of May, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
**Exhibit 21.1**

 
| **Name**                                       | **State of Organization** | **Ownership** |
|------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|---------------|
| Cargo Connection Logistics Corp.               | Delaware                  | 100%          |
| Cargo Connection Logistics International, Inc. | Illinois                  | 100%          |
| Nuclear Material Detection Technologies, Inc.  | Florida                   | 100%          |
| Independent Transport Group, LLC               | Florida                   | 51%           |

 

 

 

 
|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Office of the Administrator 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

March 30, 2016 

TO: Officials-in-Charge of Headquarters Offices 

Directors, NASA Centers 

FROM: Associate Administrator 

SUBJECT: NAPA Review ofNASA's Foreign National Access Management 

As senior leaders, I know that each of you places a high priority on protecting sensitive 

data and ensuring that it is not compromised. Our Foreign National Access Management 

(FNAM) Program is critical to safeguarding sensitive information. 

NASA established the FNAM Program, in March of2014, as the primary vehicle for 

strengthening how the Agency manages foreign national access to NASA facilities. This 

program, established under the Office of Protective Services (OPS), is a collaboration 

between OPS and the Office of International and Interagency Relations and the Office of 

the Chief Information Officer. Through a risk based approach, the FNAM Program 

effected changes that increased security and realized efficiencies. 

In February 2016, the National Academy ofPublic Administration (NAPA) conducted an 

assessment ofNASA's progress toward meeting the 27 recommendations of the 2014 

NAPA Independent Review of Foreign National Access Management at NASA. The 

review evaluated the actions taken by NASA and our effectiveness in meeting the intent of 

the 2014 NAPA report recommendations in the areas of Foreign National Access (physical 

and logical), Information Technology (IT) Security, Counterintelligence, Export Control, 

and Organizational and Functional Relationships. NASA has completed actions on 22 of 

the 27 recommendations and continues to execute multi-year plans to address the 

remaining recommendations. 

In its review, NAP A recognized NASA fully embraced the recommendations from the 

2014 Report and continues to focus on strengthening the FNAM Program through future 

enhancements. NASA has committed significant resources to ensure the continued success 

of the FNAM Program and its components, including Export Control, Counterintelligence, 

and Information Technology Security. The 2016 NAPA Review is enclosed and will be 

posted on the NASA Reports Web site and the FNAM Program Web site. 

N~~ ' ) . 
2 

NASA remains fully committed to a robust FNAM Program, and, with your help and 

support, this will remain a high priority for the Agency. Thanks for your continued 

commitment to this effort. 

-(u {'r- .J.-(; 1 a , 

Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr. 

Enclosure
#### McCullock *v.*Gallagher.

Attachment — Claimant to he Made a Party.

Under the Civil Code any one claiming property attached may, by petition, have himself made a party to the suit, and have his rights adjudicated.

Same — Dismissal of Suit.

When a ease has been dismissed the plaintiff and defendant are out of court, and a petition to be made a party cannot he filed.

APPEAL EROM JEEEERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 25, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Bullitt :

After the order dismissing the original case between appellant as plaintiff and Gates as defendant, Gallagher by petition had himself made a party and claimed the horse attached, and the court adjudged it to him without any notice or rule being served on either of the original parties.

Under our Civil. Code any one claiming property attached may by petition have himself made a party *to the suit*and have his rights adjudicated.

*165But when the cause has been dismissed both the plaintiff and defendant are out of court, there is then no. cause pending, and a party would have just as much right to file an original petition and have judgment thereon without service of process, either actual or constructive.

The whole proceeding on Gallagher’s petition was erroneous; the Code does not allow a claimant to thus make himself a party when there is no cause pending in the court.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice: Notice of Extension of Comment Period.

# SUMMARY:

                        The USDA Forest Service published a Notice of Intent in the                         **Federal Register**                         of October 5, 2010, requesting comments concerning a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Greens Creek Mine Tailings Expansion. The comment period is to be extended.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chad VanOrmer, 907-789-6202 or Sarah Samuelson, 907-789-6274.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of October 5, 2010, in FR Doc. 2010-24907, on page 61415, in the first column, correct the                         **DATES**                         caption to read:                    

**DATES:**                             Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by November 19, 2010.                        

Dated: October 22, 2010.

Forrest Cole,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 2010-27361 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
seas-ex109_206.htm



Exhibit 10.9

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc.

6240 Sea Harbor Drive

Orlando, Florida 32821

February [  ], 2020

 

[LTIP PARTICIPANT]

 

Re: Notice of Modification to 2019 LTIP Award

 

Dear [LTIP PARTICIPANT],

 

On February 25, 2020, SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) approved a modification (the “Modification”) to the Long-Term Incentive Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units originally granted by the Company on [DATE] under its 2017 Omnibus Incentive Plan, including your grant pursuant to the Performance Stock Unit Grant Notice and Restricted Stock Unit Agreement (your “2019 LTIP Award”). The Modification was approved in order to better align the performance period and performance metrics in your 2019 LTIP Award with the performance period and performance metrics set forth in the performance-based restricted stock units award granted to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer in November 2019, upon his commencement of employment with the Company.  Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in your 2019 LTIP Award.

 

 

The Modification extended the Performance Period and Extended Performance Period.  Following the Modification the following dates apply:

 

(i) The term “Performance Period” is revised in its entirety to mean the period commencing on January 1, 2019 and ending on December 31, 2022.

 

(ii)The term “Extended Performance Period” is revised in its entirety to mean the period commencing on January 1, 2023 and ending on December 31, 2023.

 

As a result of these changes the Vesting Date shall also include reference to the 2023 fiscal year and the forfeiture provision in Section 1(c) of Exhibit A to your 2019 LTIP Award shall be updated accordingly to reflect “fiscal year 2022 and/or 2023, as applicable”.

 

In connection with the Modification, the Board determined a new “Adjusted EBITDA Target”, referred to herein as the “Revised Adjusted EBITDA Target”, and a new “Adjusted EBITDA Threshold”, referred to herein as the “Revised Adjusted EBITDA Threshold”.  In addition to the current vesting terms set forth in your 2019 LTIP Award, your 2019 LTIP Award shall also vest in accordance with its terms if the Revised Adjusted EBITDA Target and/or Revised Adjusted EBITDA Threshold, as applicable, are achieved during the Performance Period or Extended Performance Period, as applicable.  For the avoidance of doubt, all terms and conditions that apply to (i) the Adjusted EBITDA Target shall also apply to the Revised Adjusted EBITDA Target and (ii) the Adjusted EBITDA Threshold shall also apply to the Revised Adjusted EBITDA Target.

 

Except as set forth herein, the terms and conditions of your 2019 LTIP Award remain unchanged.  The Company believes aligning your award with the CEO Performance Award puts everyone on the same path to success. 

 

If you have any questions please reach out to [•] at [•].

 



Sincerely,

 

 

 

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc.

 

By: ___________________________

Name: 

Title: 




ACCEPTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED

 

 

 

 

[LTIP PARTICIPANT]
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.2
           Incorporated Under the Laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia







        0                                                               0




                               INSMED INCORPORATED
                          Common Stock (.01 par value)


                           SEE LEGENDS ON REVERSE SIDE

                                    SPECIMEN


                             ------ Zero (0) ------

    Insmed Incorporated, a Virginia corporation, fully-paid and nonassessable






      ------------------------               ----------------------------
      Geoffrey Allan, Ph.D.                  W. McIlwaine Thompson, Jr.
      President and Chief Executive Officer  Secretary


                                      $.01
                                    par value

<PAGE>


THE COMPANY WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH SHAREHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS THE
POWERS, DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES AND RELATIVE, PARTICIPATING, OPTIONAL, OR
OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK OR SERIES THEREOF OF THE COMPANY AND
THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND/OR
RIGHTS. SUCH REQUEST MAY BE MADE TO THE COMPANY.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000893046
<NAME>                        Rent-Way, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     0

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         6,587
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    260,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 672,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        312,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       276,841
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   672,783
<SALES>                                        127,019
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               148,887
<CGS>                                          36,317
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  123,660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (52)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,146
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                17,902
<INCOME-TAX>                                   6,976
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   10,926
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.46



</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LETICIA LOPEZ-GUTIERREZ; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-73712

Agency Nos. A099-057-763

Agency Nos. A099-057-764

Agency Nos. A099-057-765

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

 Leticia Lopez-Gutierrez, Ana Brigite Lopez-Lopez, and Angel Max LopezLopez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on

ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

FILED

NOV 26 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review

de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.

2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen where they failed to establish prejudice arising from any alleged ineffective

assistance by their former attorney. See id. at 793-94 (“[P]rejudice results when

the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the

outcome of the proceedings.” (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks

omitted)).

Petitioners failed to exhaust their contention regarding their former

attorney’s failure to advise them of the possibility of applying for withholding of

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Tijani v.

Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contentions regarding the BIA’s

2009 dismissal of their appeal and denial of their motion to remand because this

petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh

v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 10-73712
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

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 March 31, 2006 (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 7, 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.