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

Space Administration

(2) NASA contracts sourced in the state in FY21; see FY21 NASA Economic Impact Report (3) Categories are not additive. For more information on FY21 Sample Obligations, please visit: NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS)

(1) For more information please visit: Value of NASA 

NASA Overall State Impact(1)

• Jobs Supported 244

• Economic Output $46,519,000

• State Tax Revenue $1,800,000

Moon to Mars Campaign State Impacts

• Jobs Supported 16

• Economic Output $3,727,000

• State Tax Revenue $149,000

Investments in Climate Change Research & 

Technology State Impacts

• Jobs Supported 133

• Economic Output $24,820,000

• State Tax Revenue $960,000

Sample Obligations(3)

Business $8,941,814 

• Other Than Small Business $2,938,292 

• Small Business $6,003,522 

 – 8(A) Program $0 

 – Economically Disadvantaged Women 

 Owned Small Business $0 

 – Historically Underutilized Business 

 (HUBZone) $2,174,584 

 – Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small

 Business $0 

 – Small Business Innovative Research $2,476,765 

 – Small Disadvantaged Business $1,593,944 

 – Veteran Owned Small Business $2,948,412 

 – Woman Owned Small Business $150,998 

 – Small Business Only $820,554 

Educational $6,873,928 

• Historically Black Colleges and Universities $0 

Government $0 

Non-profit Institutions $0 

Leading State-based NASA Business 

Contractors

BahFed Corporation $1,581,044 

Western Environmental Technology Laboratories, 

Inc. $1,371,807 

FEI Company $1,027,400 

Nanovox, LLC $999,989 

E Beam, Inc. $874,649 

Leading State-based NASA Education Funding 

Oregon State University $5,311,419 

University of Oregon $1,032,723 

Portland State University $529,786 

Space Grant Consortium 

Oregon State University $800,000 

OREGON

FY21 State Procurement Investments (2) $16.6 M
For more information about the

Economic Impact Report

for your state, go to:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Headquarters

300 E Street, SW

Washington, DC 20546

www.nasa.gov/centers

www.nasa.gov

NASA Astronauts

James Dutton

David S. Griggs

Donald Pettit*

There are 7 NASA Federal jobs and 140* contractors in the state 

of Oregon. 

For every NASA federal job located in Oregon, an additional 

33.9** jobs are supported in the state economy. For every 

million dollars’ worth of economic output generated by NASA 

federal jobs, an additional $13.5** million worth of output is 

sustained throughout the state economy. 

* Indirect effects are the purchases of goods and services by 

government agencies and private sector contractors, as well as by 

the industries that supply them.

** Multiplier based on IMPLAN Input Output (I-O) model. To learn more, 

please visit: https://blog.implan.com/understanding-implan-multipliers

OREGON

244

NASA Jobs

Supported

* Current

Seven Oregon suppliers contributed to NASA’s Artemis program. An example of the state’s contributions is the 

supply of different electronic components like fiber channel connectors and switches for Orion.
# Exhibit 32.2

# CERTIFICATON OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER

# Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report of Hemagen Diagnostics,
Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, the (Report), I,
Deborah F. Ricci, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 906 1350, 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.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Deborah F. Ricci
Deborah F. RicciChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)

May 10, 2006

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

25
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          17,044                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,259                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,351                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,640                       0
<PP&E>                                          41,846                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,353                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,979                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,034                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            67                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,801                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,979                       0
<SALES>                                         48,104                  56,741
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,104                  56,741
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,125                  52,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,344                   3,164
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,967                   3,094
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,332)                 (1,474)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                    (475)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,332)                   (999)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  24,314                   1,107
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,982                     108
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.00                    0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.00                    0.02


</TABLE>
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2079

To suspend temporarily the duty on electron guns for cathode ray tubes 

(CRT’s) for high definition televisions with a high definition television 

screen aspect ratio of 16:9. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2004

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

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on electron guns for cathode ray tubes (CRT’s) for high definition televisions with 

a high definition television screen aspect ratio of 16:9.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELECTRON GUNS FOR CATHODE RAY TUBES 

4 FOR HIGH DEFINITION TELEVISIONS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading:
2

•S 2079 IS 

‘‘ 9902.85.25 Electron guns actually used for cathode ray tubes (CRT’s) for high definition televisions with a high definition television screen aspect ratio of 

16:9 (provided for in subheading 

8540.91.50) ....................................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2006 ’’. 

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

2 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 

4 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

January 27, 2023 

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Washington 

Space Business Roundtable (WSBR) and Maryland Space Business 

Roundtable (MSBR) Reception on February 1, 2023 

On February 1, 2023, the Washington Space Business Roundtable (WSBR) and Maryland 

Space Business Roundtable (MSBR), nonprofit organizations under 501(c)(3) of the Internal 

Revenue Code, will host a reception at Zoca Mexican Restaurant, on Capitol Hill, 319 

Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20003, starting at 6:00 p.m. A guest speaker will be 

Alicia Brown (NASA). The purpose of the event is to network and provide an update on 

policy goals for 2023. 

 Approximately, over 125 people have been invited to attend. Attendees will have a diversity 

of views or interests and will include representatives from the legislative branch, state and 

local government officials, representatives from industry, employees of federal agencies, 

academia, media and members of the public. The estimated cost of the event, including all 

food and beverages, is $20 per person. WSBR is in control of the organizing, planning and 

invitations for this event. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to exchange 

information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the requirements 

of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2). 

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and 

views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees, including 

NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under 

Executive Order 13989, 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 who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the 

interests of WSBR and MSBR, such as procurement duties, program management, or 
2 

negotiating or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination 

from their local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation. 

Adam F. Greenstone
#### MILLER AUTO LEASING COMPANY v. MARTIN S. WEINSTEIN.

July 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied. (See 193 *N.J.Super.*328)
#### Collins *v.*Harbold.—In error.

*Thursday, June*6.

DEBT on a writing obligatory'. Pleas, *nil debet*and payment. Judgment by' default. *Held,*that the judgment was erroneous.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 5, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JESUS ENRIQUE

BUSTILLOS-LOPEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Nos. 10-2057 & 10-2058

(D.C. Nos. 2:09-CR-02364-JEC-1 & 

2:08-CR-01398-JAP-4)

ORDER

Before KELLY, MURPHY and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the court on the “Parties’ Joint Motion for Remand to

the District Court for Resentencing.” The motion is granted. 

This matter is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the

defendant-appellant’s sentences and for resentencing in accordance with the

parties’ joint motion. 

 The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH SHUMAKER, Clerk of Court

by:

Christine Van Coney

Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-2058 Document: 01018472082 Date Filed: 08/05/2010 Page: 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AS OF MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                        3,637,931
<SECURITIES>                                  3,900,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   275,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                324,835
<PP&E>                                        3,665,347
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (512,364)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               34,569,481
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         2,314,743
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         23,071
<OTHER-SE>                                   22,271,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 34,569,481
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                305,754
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             32,653,364
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (32,380,289)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (1,229,105)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (31,151,184)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                (31,151,184)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (1.37)


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM HARRISON.

June *21,*1978.

Petition for certification denied.
Enclosure

NASA Advisory Council Recommendation

Resource Exploration

2022-02-04

Name of Committee: Human Exploration and 

Operations Committee

Chair of Committee: Mr. Wayne Hale

Date of Council Public Deliberation: August 10, 2022

Short Title of Recommendation: Resource Exploration 

Recommendation:

NASA should establish organizational responsibility and a plan for lunar resource exploration 

(prospecting), with priority given to lunar polar ice deposits.

Major Reasons for the Recommendation:

Aside from a single proof of concept mission, Viper, there is no plan for identifying and 

characterizing the ice deposits at the poles of the Moon as Reserves to be utilized by processing 

the ice into rocket propellant. An economically viable source of propellant on the Moon will 

significantly lower the cost of a sustained lunar presence and enable missions to Mars.

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation:

Forgoing or delaying the development of lunar water ice resources entails an enormous 

opportunity cost. A sustained lunar presence and human missions to Mars may not be feasible if 

all propellant must be brought from Earth.

NASA Response:

NASA concurs that a plan for lunar resource exploration prospecting is a priority and 

organizational responsibilities are being established. The Science Mission Directorate (SMD), 

Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), and Exploration Systems Development Mission 

Directorate (ESDMD) are collectively working the science, technology, and mission planning for 

resource prospecting of the lunar south pole.

SMD’s Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) mission is an important first 

step in mapping the distribution and concentration of resources near the lunar South Pole. 

STMD’s In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pilot plant will demonstrate a scalable end-to-end 

ability to extract and use lunar resources. These two missions, from concept development 

through flight and implementation will continue to inform options for longer-term prospecting in 

the lunar architecture.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF PNI
TECHNOLOGIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR
THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,918,729
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,234,482
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (481,463)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,190,561
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,969,600
<PP&E>                                      28,193,177
<DEPRECIATION>                             (15,810,274)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,624,292
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,293,780
<BONDS>                                      1,398,849
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       30,165,856
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    54,797,564
<OTHER-SE>                                 (61,031,757)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                        277,656
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,076,404
<CGS>                                          320,127
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,047,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,697,011
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             490,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,940,348)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (5,940,348)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,940,348)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.53)


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 24-7083 September Term, 2024

1:24-cv-00353-UNA

Filed On: September 4, 2024

Matthew Jones,

Appellant

v.

Central District Station,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Katsas, Pan, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order dated April 25, 2024,

be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the case as frivolous because the

complaint’s allegations lacked an arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (providing that “the

court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or

appeal . . . is frivolous or malicious”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 24-7083 September Term, 2024

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
#### STATE v. ROURKE

No. 420P01

Case below: 143 N.C. App. 672

Petition by defendant pro se for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 20 August 2001.
#### The Travelers Insurance Company, Appellant, v Rita Abelow et al., Respondents.

[786 NYS2d 915]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered July 15, 2004, which, in a declaratory judgment action involving long-term care insurance coverage, granted defendants’ motion to vacate their default in appearing at a compliance conference, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record simply does not support plaintiff’s claim that defendants’ failure to appear at the compliance conference was part of a persistent pattern of delay, or otherwise undermine defendants’ attorney’s representation that the reason he did not appear at the conference was because he miscalendared its date (CPLR 2005; *see Telep v Republic El. Corp.,*267 AD2d 57, 58 [1999]; *cf. Fink Weinberger v Rosenkrantz,*252 AD2d 368 [1998]). As to the merits, we cannot say, at this juncture, that application for insurance was fraudulent. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
**Exhibit 12.1****Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charge Calculation**(dollars in thousands)           **Three Months**  **Three Months**   **Ended**  **Ended**   **12/31/2005**  **12/31/2004** Pre-tax income from continuing operations $2,018  $2,557          Fixed charges:        Interest expense + Amortization of deferred financing from continuing operations  7,292   7,347 Interest factor of rental expense (1)  2,351   2,141        Total fixed charges  9,643   9,488          Pre-tax income from continuing operations plus fixed charges  11,661   12,045          Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charge  1.21   1.27  (1) One-third of rental expense relating to operating leases isattributed to the interest portion. Managementbelieves this represents a reasonable approximation of the interest factor.