alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Early morning view of Pad B, KSC with ASTP Apollo/Saturn space vehicle on pad

S75-28386 (2 July 1975) --- An early morning view of Pad B, Launch Complex 39, Kennedy Space Center, showing the ASTP Apollo/Saturn 1B space vehicle on the pad during Apollo-Soyuz Test Project prelaunch preparations.  An ASTP countdown demonstration "wet" test (CDDT) was being conducted at KSC when this photograph was taken.  The liftoff was on July 15, 1975.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-s75-28386/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenJuly 2, 1975ProducerJSCSize1920x1511pxPIA NumberS75-28386The 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:								  								Sep 22, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
#### Brackenridge *v.*M‘Culloch.

Saturday, January 25, 1845.

. . , . A person cannot sustain a *scire facias*to vacate a judgment which is regular on its face, and which he obtained at a term prior to that when the *scire facias*issued.

ERROR to the *Allen*Circuit Court.

Dewet, J.

— This was a *scire facias*by *M’-Culhch*against *Brackenridge*and *Mariam*to show cause why a judgment should not be vacated. • The writ (which was issued in *January,*1843,) alleged that M’-Culhch, at the *April*term, 1838, of the *Allen*Circuit Court, commenced an action of debt against *Dewitt C.*Stephens, *William A.*-Henderson, and *Mason M.*Mariam, as partners, trading under the firm of *D. G. Stephens*and Co., on a promissory note made by that firm; that the process was returned “not found” as to *Stephens;*that *M'-Culhch*obtained a judgment against *Henderson*and *Mariam;*that, after the rendition of the judgment, *Henderson*died, and *Brackenridge*was appointed his administrator; that *Mariam*was not in fact a member of the firm of *D. C. Stephens*and Co., and was made a party to the suit by mistake; that one *Zenas Henderson*was a dormant partner of that firm, and as such was one of the makers of the note, but that he had fraudulently induced *M’-Culhch*to believe he was not a partner, and was, therefore, not sued; whereupon the judgment ought to be vacated, &c. The defendants demurred to the *scire*facias, and the demurrer was overruled. Whereupon the Court adjudged that the judgment in the action of debt be vacated.

We think the demurrer should have been sustained. We know of no principle of law by which a plaintiff can, by *scire*facias, set aside a judgment, regular upon its face, obtained by him at a term prior to that of issuing the *scire*facias, though he may have committed a mistake in obtaining the judgment.

*335*D. H.*Colericit, *W. H.*Coombs, and *R.*Brackenridge, for the plaintiff.

*II.*Cooper, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
Exhibit 32.2

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Cash Distribution Fund V, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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

Date: May 13, 2009



|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                                                             
|Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                 
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of
|ATEL Financial Services, LLC (General Partner)                                     

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.
#### Hancock et al. *v.*Payne et al.

New Trial — Verdict — Weight' of Evidence.

Tliis court will not award a new trial because the verdict is against the weight of evidence after the court below has refused it on that ground.

Objection to Erroneous Instructions.

Unless objections are made at the time instructions are offered the errors in them, if any, are to be considered and treated as waived.

APPEAL EROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.

October 1, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters :

This case has been submitted to and passed upon by two juries, and the verdict on each trial was unfavorable to appellants.

The evidence adduced on the first trial is not before us, and although, as an original question, our conclusion might have been different from that of the last jury, still we cannot say that the verdict is so flagrantly against the weight of evidence as to authorize us to interpose and award another trial after the court below had refused it.

On the subject of the instructions to the jury two were given on motion of appellees, and even if there was any error in either of them we cannot now correct it, for there was no objection at the time by appellant to the giving them, and, as has been repeatedly decided by this court, unless objections are made at the time instructions are offered, the errors in them, if any, are to be considered and treated as waived, and the only instruction asked by appellants was given, no available error to appellants is perceived; consequently, the judgment must be affirmed.
EXHIBIT 21.1



Subsidiaries of the Company



|                                 |  |                                              
|-------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary               |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization
|                                 | 
|Huttig, Inc.                     |  | Delaware                                     
|                                 | 
|Huttig FSC, Inc.                 |  | Barbados                                     
|                                 | 
|Huttig Building Materials        |  | Delaware                                     
|                                 | 
|Huttig Texas Holdings, Inc.      |  | Delaware                                     
|                                 | 
|Huttig Texas Limited Partnership |  | Texas
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, 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 November 20, 2012

d1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145560

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145560

COA: 308257

Wayne CC: 07

- 023800

- FH

DANNIE RAY BAKER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1852

To provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin 

National Memorial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the development 

of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of 

Benjamin Franklin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2003

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. SANTORUM) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL

To provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the 

Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin.

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

3 SECTION 1. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN NATIONAL MEMORIAL. 

4 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

5 (1) in Public Law 92–551 (86 Stat. 1164), 

6 Congress—
2

S 1852 IS 

1 (A) designated the Benjamin Franklin Me2 morial Hall as the Benjamin Franklin National 

3 Memorial; and 

4 (B) directed the Secretary of the Interior 

5 to enter into a cooperative agreement with the 

6 Franklin Institute; and 

7 (2) in a memorandum of understanding entered 

8 into on November 6, 1973, the Secretary of the In9 terior agreed to cooperate in the preservation and 

10 presentation of the Benjamin Franklin Memorial 

11 Hall as a national memorial. 

12 (b) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior 

13 shall provide a grant to the Franklin Institute to—

14 (1) rehabilitate the Benjamin Franklin National 

15 Memorial (including the Franklin statue) in Phila16 delphia, Pennsylvania; and 

17 (2) develop an exhibit featuring artifacts and 

18 multimedia collections relating to Benjamin Frank19 lin, to be displayed at a museum adjacent to the 

20 Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. 

21 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

22 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act for 

23 fiscal years 2004 through 2008 $10,000,000.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Huttig Building Products, Inc. on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-92495, 333-92497, and
333-92499) of our report dated January 24, 2000 (February 11, 2000 as to Note
14), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Huttig Building Products,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
March 2, 2000
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

Connect the Dots

Draw the Orion spacecraft by connecting the numbered dots.

1

2

3

4

5 6

11 9 8 7

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

41

40

42
JONATHAN VALENCIA

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 1 6

- 18 15

______ _______________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James O. Shelfer

, J udge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, John Knowles, Assistant Public Defender, Steven Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, an d Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR

.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer of Martek Biosciences Corporation (the Company), each hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) |  | the Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
ended April 30, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (b) |  | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.                                                                                                                               

| |  |                                                          | 
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |  | /s/ Henry Linsert, Jr.                                   | 
| |  |                                                          | 
| |  | Henry Linsert, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
June 16, 2003 | 
| |  |                                                          | 
| |  | /s/ Peter L. Buzy                                        | 
| |  |                                                          | 
| |  | Peter L. Buzy
Chief Financial Officer
June 16, 2003      | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Section 1350 Certification (CFO) Exhibit 32.2 SINA CORPORATION 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 SINA Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles Chao,
Chief Financial 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:  (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/ Charles Chao
#### W. R. Allen et al. *v.*J. W. Shortridge et al.

Tender — Plea of.

A plea of tender to be effectual should show an officer to deliver or perform, at a proper or allowable time and a continued readiness afterward.

APPEAL PROM MCLEAN CIRCUIT COURT.

February 13, 1866.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Marshall :

This action was brought by Shortridge on an appeal bond executed to them by Allen, etc., on an appeal by Allen, etc., from a judgment of the McLean Circuit Court, for the recovery by Short-ridge, etc., of a negro boy, valued in the judgment at $460, and also' for $5 costs.

The petition shows a breach of the bond in the failure to deliver the negro boy on demand of the sheriff under a writ of execution issued on the judgment after its affirmance. For this breach there arose immediately a right of action on the bond, and the obligees having failed in their rightful effort to obtain possession of the negro, were entitled to demand the adjudged value, as they have done in this action.

The answer of the defendants pleads a tender of the negro *“*on the........day of..................,” and a readiness now to tender him to the plaintiffs. The answer does not state nor show that the alleged tender was made before the demand of .the negro by the sheriff, and does not even show that it was made before the comineneement of this suit; nor does it either deny or excuse the failure to deliver to the sheriff, which it entirely shows that the defendants were not at all times ready to deliver the boy after the affirmance of the judgment.

A plea of tender to be effectual should show an offer to deliver or perform at the proper, or at an allowable time, and a continued readiness afterward. Tested by this rule the answer in this case is fatally defective, unless it be true that the right of the defendants in the judgment for the negro, to discharge themselves by delivering him to the plaintiff, is not affected either by the facts alleged in *362the petition or by tbe commencement and pendency of tbe action founded on the failure to deliver him when lawfully demanded under tbe judgment.

Tbe truth of tbis proposition we do not admit, and we are, consequently, of opinion that tbe ansvrer is insufficient to bar tbe action and that tbe demurrer to it was properly sustained.

Wherefore, tbe judgment is affirmed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-30234

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FELIX COLON-VALIERO,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-250

- - - - - - - - - -

February 20, 1997

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Felix

Colon-Valiero has filed a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the

brief, Colon-Valiero’s response, and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the Federal Public Defender is

excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
BOSTON FINANCIAL TAX CREDIT FUND VII, A
                               LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                                  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 Quarterly Report of Boston Financial Tax Credits Fund VII
(the "Fund") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



                                         /s/Jenny Netzer
                                         ------------------------------------
                                         Jenny Netzer
                                         Principal Executive Officer and
                                         Principal Financial Officer
                                         Arch Street VIII, Inc. as
                                         Managing General Partner of
                                         Boston Financial Tax Credits Fund VII,
                                         A Limited Partnership


                                         Date:  November 14, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### JAMES MALAGRINO v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

July 11, 1978.

Petition for certification granted.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1718

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

3710 West 73rd Terrace in Prairie Village, Kansas, as the ‘‘Senator 

James B. Pearson Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 14, 2003

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. BROWNBACK) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3710 West 73rd Terrace in Prairie Village, 

Kansas, as the ‘‘Senator James B. Pearson Post Office’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. SENATOR JAMES B. PEARSON POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 3710 West 73rd Terrace in Prai6 rie Village, Kansas, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Senator James B. Pearson Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2

•S 1718 IS 

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the Senator James B. Pear3 son Post Office.

Æ
#### The State, on the Relation of Rittenour, *v.*Campbell and Others.— On appeal.

A PLEA cannot traverse what is not alleged in the declaration.

In debt on bond conditioned for the performance of duties, &c., where breaches are not assigned in the declaration, the usual course is for the defendant to set out the condition of the bond on *oyer,*and plead performance generally, and for the plaintiff to assign breaches in the replication (1).

1

(1) The statute now requires the breaches in such cases to be assigned in the declaration. Acts of 1847, p. 112.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LEONARD THOMPSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 135 MM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of November

, 2016, the Application for Leave to

Exceed Word Limitations is DENIED

. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a compliant

Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 30 days.