alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William Capozzi, Appellant, v. Robert Huhne, Respondent.

[788 NYS2d 152]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered April 6, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While a landowner must act as a reasonable person in maintaining his or her property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances *(see Basso v Miller,*40 NY2d 233 [1976]), there is “no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous” *(Jang Hee Lee v Sung Whun Oh,*3 AD3d 473, 474 [2004]; *see Cupo v Karfunkel,*1 AD3d 48 [2003]).

The clear and undisputed evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that the gravel walkway into which a decorative cement slab was incorporated did not create an inherently dangerous condition. Any difference in elevation between the lawn of the subject premises and the gravel and the slab was readily observable to those employing the reasonable use of their senses and did not present an undue risk of harm *(see Gibbons v Lido & Point Lookout Fire Dist.,*293 AD2d 646, 647 [2002]; *Simmons v Sam's E.,*293 AD2d 596, 597 [2002]; *Plessias v Scalia Home for Funerals,*271 AD2d 423 [2000]).

*475The plaintiffs injury cannot fairly be attributed to an unsafe condition on the property. The injury resulted from the course of conduct that the plaintiffs coworker decided to pursue while moving a heavy object *(see Macey v Truman,*70 NY2d 918 [1987]; *Mattes v Joseph,*282 AD2d 506 [2001]). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Lawana Robinson, Appellant, v Richard T. Roberts, as Commissioner of the City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development, et al., Respondents.

[786 NYS2d 917]

*395Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered November 14, 2002, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ denial of petitioner’s application for successor tenancy status, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The record evidence establishes that for approximately two years, while petitioner lived in the subject apartment, she obtained electricity illegally through an unauthorized tap line running from the apartment to a basement distribution panel, and in so doing created a danger to other tenants. This constituted an “Unacceptable activity” within the meaning of 28 RCNY 24-01 and accordingly sufficed as a ground for the denial of petitioner’s application for successor tenancy status *(see*28 RCNY 24-05 [a]).

Petitioner’s remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"NASA, Boeing Gather Data to Aid Sustainable Aviation Fuel Adoption","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"w7FP7bkPo3\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/nasa-boeing-gather-data-to-aid-sustainable-aviation-fuel-adoption\/\">NASA, Boeing Gather Data to Aid Sustainable Aviation Fuel Adoption<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/nasa-boeing-gather-data-to-aid-sustainable-aviation-fuel-adoption\/embed\/#?secret=w7FP7bkPo3\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA, Boeing Gather Data to Aid Sustainable Aviation Fuel Adoption” — NASA\" data-secret=\"w7FP7bkPo3\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/22bft167_17_ecod_saf_photosby_paulweatherman_cropped.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":595}
#### Eliezer Tibor Neuhauser, Also Known as Eli Neuhauser, Respondent, v Antonio Polanco et al., Appellants.

[789 NYS2d 256] 

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of claims to real property, the defendants Yitchok Wagschal and Lilly Neuhauser, also known as Lilly Weiss, also known as Chaya Neuhauser, appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), entered September 3, 2003, which, after a nonjury trial, determined that the defendant Lilly Neuhauser, also known as Lilly Weiss, also known as Chaya Neuhauser, held title to certain property in constructive trust for the benefit of the plaintiff, and that the defendant Yitchok Wagschal was not a bona fide purchaser of the property for value, and the defendant Antonio Polanco also appeals from the judgment.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Antonio Polanco is dismissed as abandoned (see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed *675from by the defendants Yitchok Wagschal and Lilly Neuhauser, also known as Lilly Weiss, also known as Chaya Neuhauser, without costs or disbursements.

A court’s determination after a nonjury trial will generally be upheld unless it could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see Koslowski v Koslowski,*297 AD2d 784, 785 [2002]). Here, the trial court found that the plaintiff established, inter alia, the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship *(see Walsh v Walsh,*91 AD2d 1198 [1983]; *Darlagiannis v Darlagiannis,*48 AD2d 875 [1975]; *Janke v Janke,*47 AD2d 445, 449 [1975], *affd*39 NY2d 786 [1976]), and a promise to transfer title to the subject property *(see Ostriker v Ostriker,*203 AD2d 343, 345 [1994]; *Tordai v Tordai,*109 AD2d 996, 997 [1985]). It determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the imposition of a constructive trust in his favor *(see Sharp v Kosmalski,*40 NY2d 119 [1976]). This determination was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence.

The appellant Yitchok Wagschal failed to satisfy his burden of proving that he did not purchase the property with “previous notice of the alleged prior fraud by the seller” *(Public Adm'r of Kings County v Samerson,*298 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions do not require reversal. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.
#### P.R.I.D.E., INC. v. DIVISION OF HOUSING, BUREAU OF CONSTRUCTION CODE ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN INGRAM.

May 22, 1984.

Petition for certification granted.
MARIA CABALLERO

consulting engineer

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS

1. As a young girl, what was Maria’s dream?

2. Where did Maria and her family live?

3. What was the event that led to Maria deciding that she wanted to work for NASA?

4. Describe in your own words what is Maria’s job at NASA?

5. What is a drone? Describe how one is flown.

6. Maira grew up in a migrant family, describe what Maria’s life was like when she was 12 years old.

7. Maria was the first in her family to go to college, what did she study?
MARIA CABALLERO

consulting engineer

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS

8. What were some of the things Maria said she could have done to help make her college coursework easier

to understand?

9. Describe the things that Maria did for her first job out of college.

10. Maria’s favorite job was to help work on Helios. Explain what made Helios special.

11. What information does Maria share with other students when she speaks with them?

12. What does Maria hope her work does for other people?
Exhibit 12.1 CERTIFICATIONS I, Koji Sato, certify
that:  1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, as previously amended
by Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 on Form 20-F/A and as further amended by Amendment No. 3 on Form 20-F/A, of Toyota Motor Corporation (the
Company);  2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and  3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. Date: February 6, 2024  /s/ Koji SatoKoji SatoChief Executive Officer,
Member of the Board of Directors
Toyota Motor Corporation




---

CERTIFICATIONS I, Yoichi Miyazaki, certify that:  1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, as previously amended
by Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 on Form 20-F/A and as further amended by Amendment No. 3 on Form 20-F/A, of Toyota Motor Corporation (the
Company);  2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and  3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. Date: February 6, 2024  /s/ Yoichi MiyazakiYoichi MiyazakiChief Financial Officer,
Member of the Board of Directors
Toyota Motor Corporation
Reply to Attn of: 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

May 7, 2012 

Office of the Chief Scientist 

Colonel Walter Cunningham, USMC (Ret.) 

5110 San Felipe 

162W 

Houston, TX 77056 

Dear Colonel Cunningham: 

Thank you for your letter dated March 28th, addressed to the NASA Administrator, who 

has asked me to respond on behalf of the agency. First let me recognize and express my 

appreciation for the contributions to our Nation's space program that you and your fellow 

signers have made. NASA has a tremendous record of achievement based on these 

contributions. We also have many challenges and opportunities today, and welcome all 

commentary on different subjects. 

NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the 

relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw 

conclusions and issue "claims" about research findings. We support open scientific 

inquiry and discussion. Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based 

observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform 

investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in 

these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this 

information. 

We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the 

scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the 

appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to 

communicate these results to the public. 

Consistent with NASA statutory responsibility, the agency will "provide for the widest 

practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the 

results thereof." This includes posting scientific findings on our websites, often in the 

form of press releases and feature stories. These materials are traditionally descriptive of 

peer-reviewed journal articles, and we strive to include a direct reference to the original 

article(s) wherever possible. Thus, NASA's websites reflect current scientific findings 

across the range of disciplines in which we conduct research. 
I appreciate your concern for NASA's reputation. Public trust in NASA is dependent 

upon transparency and openness. Disagreement is part of scientific discourse, and it is 

NASA policy not to restrict such discourse. If you and your fellow authors disagree with 

specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists on NASA's websites or 

elsewhere, I encourage you to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums 

rather than restrict such discourse. 

Thank you again for your contributions as well as commentary on this subject. 

Sincerely, 

Chief Scientist 

cc: 

Associate Administrator for Science Mission Directorate/Dr. John Grunsfeld 

Director, Goddard Space Flight Center/Mr. Chris Scalese 

2
#### Justus *v.*Cooper.

Although the payee’s name in a promissory note have been partially erased so as to be illegible, still a suit on the note may be sustained against the maker by proof that it was executed by him, that it was'made payable and was delivered to the plaintiff, that the latter had possession of the note when he commenced the suit, and that his name in it had been erased under circumstances showing the validity of the note not to be affected by the erasure.

On the trial of a suit on such note proved to have been executed by the defendant, the plaintiff offered to prove that the note was originally made *8payable to him, and that he was in possession of it when he commenced the suit. *Held,*that those facts might be proved as links in the chain of the plaintiff’s evidence.

Tuesday, *December 12.*,

ERROR to the *Parke*Circuit Court.

T. *A.*Howard, for the plaintiff.

*C.*Fletcher, *O.*Butler, and *S. F.*Maxwell, for the defendant.

Blackford, J.

— This was an action of assumpsit commenced by the plaintiff in error before a justice of the peace.

A joint and several promissory note signed by *Wm.*Justus, *Thomas*Cooper, and *Amos*Wood, for 63 dollars, was filed as the cause of action. The payee’s name in the note was partially erased, apparently with a knife, so as to be illegible. The note, as a cause of action, was accompanied by an allegation of the plaintiff, that it was made payable to him by the name of *A. Justus.*A plea in denial of the defendant’s execution of the note, sworn to by him, was filed. Verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court. Verdict in that Court for the defendant; motion for a new trial overruled; and judgment on the verdict.

On the trial in the Circuit Court, the plaintiff proved the defendant’s execution of the note; the plaintiff then offered to prove that the note was originally made payable to him by the name of *A. Justus;*and that he was in possession of the note when he commenced this suit. The Court refused to admit the evidence offered.

The plaintiff could recover on this note by proving that the defendant had executed it; that it was made payable and delivered to him by the name of *A. Justus;*that he had possession of the note when he commenced the suit on it; and that his name in it had been erased under circumstances showing the validity of the note not to be affected by the erasure.

The facts offered to be proved, though not of themselves ''sufficient to show the plaintiff’s right to recover, were links in the chain of his evidence ; and he ought therefore to have been permitted to prove them.-

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
**Exhibit
13.1**
  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 Radware Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F
for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roy Zisapel, acting Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Company.
 
 Date:
April 13, 2005
 /s/
      Roy
      Zisapel
      Roy
      Zisapel
      Chief
      Executive Officer
      (Principal
      Executive Officer)
Company Participant
 Plan
 Committee
  Award
 Grant Restricted
Stock Stock
 Plan Incorporated
 Statement of Election
 Risk of Forfeiture (Forfeiture Restrictions)
 Forfeiture Due to Termination of Employment
 Date of Termination Date of
Termination




---



##### 



Restrictions on Transfer
 Lapse of Forfeiture Restrictions
 Vesting
 Change in Control
    2




---



##### 



Delivery of Certificates
 Custody of Restricted Stock
 Custody
 3




---



##### 



Additional Securities as Restricted Stock
 Delivery to Participant
 Status of Stock
 Rights as Stockholder
 Compliance with Securities Laws
 4




---



##### 



Relationship to Company
 No Effect on Rights of Company
 No Guarantee of Service
 NonCompetition; Non-Solicitation
 Consideration for this Section.
      5




---



##### 



Restricted Activity
      6




---



##### 



Remedies
 Committees Powers
 Binding Effect
 7




---



##### 



Counterparts
 Governing Law
   HARRIS INTERACTIVE INC.By:Title:Accepted: (Participant)Dated: 8
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

DATE

NASA STEM

NASA Student Launch ARW 

Flysheet Overview

PRESENTED BY NASA Student Launch

DATE July 24, 2023
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov

2
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov

3
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov

Report: We calculated our thrust to 

weight ratio by doing the following: 

• The mass of our launch vehicle is 

45lbs and has a liftoff thrust of 

1730N. 

• To convert N to lbs. we multiply by 

0.2248 so we have 1730N*0.2248 = 

388.904lbs.

• When we divide 388.904 by 45, we 

get a thrust to weight of 8.64

*Note the discrepancy on the flysheet*

4
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov

• Online calculators are fine for BP calculations

• Backup charge MUST be larger than primary

• 90 second limitation

• 2500 feet limitation

• 8 and 10 grams too large

5
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov

• Prefer teams to use two separate 

manufacturers altimeters (software bug)

• Transmitters – Important to “know your stuff” 

can’t have 60 teams operating same frequency

• Transmitter data Google sheet sent later in the 

year

6
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov

• Most drogues are apogee (maximum 2 second 

delay).

• Deployment velocity should be 0 (unless a 

delay is used)

• Terminal Velocity – what is the velocity of the 

launch vehicle when the parachute is fully 

functioning.

• Kinetic Energy – 75 ft-lbs, but for landing. We 

understand under drogue you’ll never be 

anywhere close to 75.

7
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov

• Deployment velocity of main parachute 

SHOULD match terminal velocity of drogue.

• Terminal velocity of main is what should be 

used for KE calculations.

• Terminal Velocity – what is the velocity of the 

launch vehicle when the parachute is fully 

functioning.

• Kinetic Energy – 75 ft-lbs for each independent 

section at landing.

8
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov

9
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov 10
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov 11
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov 12
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov 13
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov 14
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov 15
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov 16
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov 17
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov

Questions? 
SPARROW

stem.nasa.gov
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2177

To amend title 10, United States Code, to change the effective date for 

paid-up coverage under the military Survivor Benefit Plan from October 

1, 2008, to October 1, 2004. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2004

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

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to change the effective date for paid-up coverage under the military Survivor Benefit Plan from October 1, 2008, to October 

1, 2004.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Survivors’ 

5 Fairness Act of 2004’’. 
2

•S 2177 IS 

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR PAID-UP COVERAGE UNDER 

2 SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN. 

3 Section 1452(j) of title 10, United States Code, is 

4 amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2008’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘October 1, 2004’’.

Æ
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Telkonet Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald W. Pickett,
President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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/ Ronald W. Pickett
-----------------------------
Ronald W. Pickett
President
March 28, 2003