alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
April 22, 2022

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group
TO: Distribution
FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA Employees at the Coalition for
Deep Space Exploration Reception on April 28, 2022

On April 28, 2022, the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration (Coalition), a nonprofit
organization under 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host a reception at the
Washington Court Hotel in Washington, DC, from 5:30 p.m. — 7:30 p.m. The Coalition is
registered and does engage in lobbying activities. The event is to provide a venue for informal
discussion for representatives from industry, the Legislative Branch, and others interested in
deep space human exploration and space science. The Coalition is in control of the planning,
organizing and issuing of invitations for this event.

Approximately 300 people are expected to attend the event. Attendees will have a diversity of
views or interests and will include personnel from other federal agencies, representatives from
the legislative branch, industry, academia, and scientific organizations. The estimated cost of
the event, including all food and beverages, is approximately $80 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).

NASA employees, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests of the
sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to 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 if they reimburse the sponsor the value of the event.

Additionally, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the
interests of the Coalition, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating or
administering a Space Act Agreement,.should seek a separate determination from their local
NASA ethics office as to whether they may accept the invitation. Attendees are reminded to
exercise any COVID-19 precautions appropriate to their individual situation.

Wl 7—

Adam F. Greenstoné
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 00-60844

_____________________

REGINALD DWIGHT PARR

Petitioner

v.

US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Respondents

_________________________________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture

(99-0022)

_________________________________________________________________

September 5, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Substantial evidence in the record supports the decision of

the Secretary of Agriculture that petitioner Reginald Dwight Parr

wilfully violated the Animal Welfare Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§

2131-2159, and the regulations and standards issued thereunder,

9 C.F.R. §§ 1.1-3.142, eight times between April 9, 1997 and

November 18, 1998. Further, we agree with the Secretary that
2

such regulations and standards gave Parr sufficient notice for

him to comply with the requirements of the Act. Accordingly, we

DENY Parr’s petition for review and AFFIRM the decision of the

Secretary.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Azur International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Nora Zampieri, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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, except that certain
            financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001 are
            not included therein because the Company does not have the financial
            records to prepare them; and

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


Dated: October 17, 2005               By: /s/ Nora Zampieri
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Nora Zampieri
                                          Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
                                  -------------

We, Gregory Sonic and Nelly Sonic certify that:

1.   We have read this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Napoli Enterprise, Inc.

2.   To our  knowledge the  information  in this report is true in all important
     respects as of December 31, 2003 and

3.   This report contains all information about the company of which we am aware
     that we  believe  important  to a  reasonable  investor,  in  light  of the
     subjects required to be addressed in this report as of December 31, 2002.

For purposes of this  certification,  information  is "important to a reasonable
investor" if:

     (a)  There is a substantial  likelihood  that a reasonable  investor  would
          view the  information  as  significantly  altering  the  total  mix of
          information in the report; and

     (b)  The  report  would  be  misleading  to a  reasonable  investor  if the
          information was omitted from the report.


Date: April 14, 2003
                                        /s/ Gregory Sonic
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Gregory Sonic, President & CEO


                                        /s/ Nelly Sonic
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Nelly Sonic, Vice President & Secretary
Exhibit 99.1
                                                                  ------------

                              Nematron Corporation

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting 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 Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of Nematron  Corporation
(the "Company") for the quarterly  period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof  (the  "Report"),
Matthew  S.  Galvez,  as Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  and Tina M.
Raiford,  as Controller of the Company,  each hereby  certifies,  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 his 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 results of operations
         of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Nematron Corporation and will be
retained by Nematron Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ Matthew S. Galvez
---------------------
Name:    Matthew S. Galvez
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
Date:    November 13, 2003


/s/ Tina M. Raiford
-------------------
Name:    Tina M. Raiford
Title:   Controller
Date:    November 13, 2003


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                           
<ARTICLE>                                       5
                                                 
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                     701,770
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            2,045,790
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 0
<PP&E>                                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          96,544,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            0
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                              59,275,519
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            96,544,174
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        10,758,799
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         7,226,479
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            55,409
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       1,461,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          2,015,510
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      2,015,510
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                             2,015,510
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        

</TABLE>
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 24, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CARL GENE LEE, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-4047

(D.C. No. 2:09-CV-00709-DAK)

(D. Utah)

ORDER 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Carl Gene Lee, Sr., a state inmate proceeding pro se,

seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) allowing him to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Lee has not

made the necessary “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” to

obtain a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

483-84 (2000). Therefore, we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal. 

In August 2009, Mr. Lee filed a one-page, handwritten habeas petition

along with almost thirty pages of Utah state court filings and correspondence with

the Utah State Bar and various attorneys. 1 R. 4-31. The district court found the

petition indecipherable, ordered the clerk to mail Mr. Lee forms and instructions

Appellate Case: 10-4047 Document: 01018483012 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Page: 1 
- 2 -

for filing a petition, and instructed Mr. Lee to complete the form petition “in an

organized, concise fashion.” Id. at 32. The court warned Mr. Lee that failure to

comply risked dismissal. Id. Mr. Lee submitted another handwritten letter and

attachments. Id. at 33-36. The court found this submission non-responsive and

dismissed the petition. Id. at 38. 

Mr. Lee appeals, but before exercising jurisdiction over his appeal we must

grant a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 342

(2003). We will issue a COA to appeal a procedural ruling only if the petitioner

shows that “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and . . . whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. In his

COA application and brief, Mr. Lee claims that he still does not understand how

to submit a habeas petition without an attorney. Pet. Br. at 2-3. The district court

gave Mr. Lee a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in his petition. But

Mr. Lee did not comply with the court’s instructions, and ignored his basic

obligation to provide sufficient facts on which to base a claim. Hall v. Bellmon,

935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Appellate Case: 10-4047 Document: 01018483012 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Page: 2 
- 3 -

Without any basis to question the district court’s procedural ruling, we

DENY a COA and any other pending motions, and DISMISS the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 10-4047 Document: 01018483012 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Page: 3
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2116 

To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 

the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 

State of California. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2004 

Mrs. BOXER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act 

to prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the State of California. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE 

4 COMPARATIVE COST ADJUSTMENT (CCA) 

5 PROGRAM IN CALIFORNIA. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860–1(b) of the Social 

7 Security Act, as added by section 241 of the Medicare Pre8 scription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 
2 

•S 2116 IS 

1 2003 (Public Law 108–173), is amended by adding at the 

2 end the following: 

3 ‘‘(3) NO CCA AREAS WITHIN CALIFORNIA.—A 

4 CCA area shall not include an MSA any portion of 

5 which is within the State of California.’’. 

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

7 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact8 ment of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 

9 and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–173). 

Æ
#### McClanahan *v.*McGill.

Property Exempt from Execution.

The plaintiff, a housekeeper with a wife and children, was entitled to two work beasts, although the horse in question was only nineteen months old, and never having been worked, being of the species to which the execution applies, and being intended for the use of the family is exempt from execution.

APPEAL PROM MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT.

June 14, 1866.

Opinion

by the Court :

The only question in this case is whether the colt or young horse which had been secured by the defendant, under two executions against the plaintiff, was exempt from execution by law.

The plaintiff, a housekeeper with a wife and children, was entitled by law to the exemption of two work beasts. It was proved that the plaintiff had but one work beast besides the horse in question, which although it was only nineteen months, and had never been used except by riding him on errands, “ was being raised for the express purpose of making a work beast for the use of the family.”

In accordance with the construction heretofore given to the statute exempting certain property from execution, we are of opinion that the horse in question, though at the time of the levy he was not old enough to have been actually worked in gear or harness, being yet of the species to which the exemption applies and having been intended and kept for the use and service which the statute intends to protect, should be regarded as a work beast within the meaning of the statute, and that being one of the only two work beasts which the plaintiff had he was exempt from execution.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial in conformity with this opinion.
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 Justice

The notice previously published on October 28, 2010, is hereby revised to correct two site location errors. The correct site locations are:

71. the Former Leed's Assembly Plant—Northern Parcel Site in Missouri; and

72. the Former Leed's Assembly Plant—Southern Parcel Site in Missouri.

                    Instructions for sending comments on the proposed Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement and for obtaining copies of the proposed Decree and Agreement are provided in the October 28, 2010 Notice (                    **Federal Register**                    /Vol. 75, No. 208/Thursday, October 28, 2010/Notices/page 66390).                

Maureen Katz,

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 2010-27846 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
EXHIBIT 32.2





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-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 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 Fund.











/s/Kenneth J. Cutillo


Kenneth J. Cutillo


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:     August 16, 2010








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.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 20, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

GARY E. KRAUSE,

 Debtor.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARY E. KRAUSE; RICHARD L.

KRAUSE,

 Defendants,

and

LINDA S. PARKS,

 Intervenor - Appellee,

No. 10-3020

(D.C. Nos. 6:08-CV-01132-WEB & 6:09-

CV-01047-WEB and 6:08-CV-01136-

WEB)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

42.1.

Appellate Case: 10-3020 Document: 01018425849 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 Page: 1 
2

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

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-3020 Document: 01018425849 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 Page: 2
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2043

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2004

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

AN ACT

To designate a Federal building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 

as the ‘‘Ronald Reagan Federal Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. RONALD REAGAN FEDERAL BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at 

5 228 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, shall be 

6 known and designated as the ‘‘Ronald Reagan Federal 

7 Building’’. 

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

10 States to the building referred to in subsection (a) shall 
2

S 2043 RFH 

1 be deemed to be a reference to the Ronald Reagan Federal 

2 Building.

Passed the Senate March 12, 2004. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.