alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"agency":"NASA","generated":"2020-08-21 10:02:03","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2020"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q2"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"7"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["AFRC","ARC","GRC","GSFC","HQ","JPL","JSC","KSC","LaRC","MSFC","NSSC","OGC","OIG","SSC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["7","10","3","14","76","21","37","26","1","6","7"," ","17","2"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["5","8","1","10","86","17","37","19"," ","4","10"," ","20","4"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["4","4","2","11","20","5","17","11","1","4"," "," ","2"," "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2020","quarter":"Q2"}
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Dean L. Cash, Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of ATEL
Cash Distribution Fund V, L.P. (the Partnership), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2007                                   
|                                                        
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                                        
|Dean L. Cash                                            
|President and Chief Executive Officer of 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.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 61086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24061]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; NIBIB 2015-01 R13 Review.
    Date: November 25, 2014.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, Suite 
920, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ruixia Zhou, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 957, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-
4773, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8c2d0d7cdcaf8d5d9d1d496d6d1d096dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="85ffedeaf0f7c5e8e4ece9abebecedabe2eaf3">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 2, 2014.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-24061 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
October 27, 2011



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EXPRO AMERICAS, LLC , Appellant

NO. 14

- 10

- 00707

- CV V.

SANGUINE GAS EXPLORA TION, LLC , Appellee

____________________ This cause, an appeal from th e judgment in favor of appellee SANGUINE GAS EXPLORATION, LLC , signed July 1, 2010, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find the trial court erred in part

. We order that the portion of the trial court’s judgment in which it denied appell ant EXPRO AMERICAS,
LLC’s motion for summary judgment be AFFIRMED , the portion of the judgment in
which the trial court granted appellee SANGUINE GAS EXPLORA TION, LLC ’s motion for summary judgment be REVERSED , and this case be REMANDED for further proceeding s in accordance with this court’ s opinion.

We order that each party pay its own costs incurred in this appeal. We further
order this decision certified below for observance.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22 - 50130 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Edward Harold Williams,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:19 - CR - 61 - 1

**_____________ _________________**  Before **King, Higginson,** and **Willett,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Edward Harold Williams has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Williams has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the re levant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 3, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50130 Document: 00516665459 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2023No. 22 - 50130

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is moot and that we lack jurisdiction. See Spencer v. Kemna , 523 U.S. 1, 7 - 8 (1998) ; United States v. Clark , 193 F.3d 845, 847 - 48 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordin gly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED AS MOOT**  . Case: 22-50130 Document: 00516665459 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2023
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Avici



|(a) | Avici Systems International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | Avici Systems Europe B.V., a Dutch limited liability company
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------



|(c) | Avici Systems France sarl, a French limited liability company
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------



|(d) | Avici Systems Germany GmbH, a German limited liability company
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------



|(e) | Avici Systems Texas, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
|--- | -------------------------------------------------



|(f) | Avici Systems Texas, L.P., a Texas limited partnership
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------



|(g) | Avici Systems KK, a Japanese corporation
|--- | ----------------------------------------
The Honorable George F. Gunn, Jr., United States District Judge f or the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3265

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Roy C. Bowens, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 5, 1998 Filed: February 10, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In 1994 Roy C. Bowens pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent t o distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and to using and carrying a firear m during a drug-trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). After Bowens moved under 28 U.S.C . § 2255 to set aside his firearm conviction in light of Bailey v. United States , 516 U.S. 137, 143-44 (1995) (defi ning “use” prong of § 924(c)(1)), the district court granted the motion, imposed a two-level enhancement under U.S.

1-2-

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (1997) (add 2 levels if dangerou s weap on, including firearm, was possessed), and resentenced Bowens to 82 month s imprisonment

and five years supervised release. Bowens appeals, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to resentence him on the unchallenged drug conviction. Becaus e Bowens & s argum

ent is foreclosed by United States v. Harrison , 113 F.3d 135, 137-38 (8th Cir. 1997), we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

** **

**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 theAnnual Report of ICOP Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A-3 for the year endedDecember 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

 

 
|               | /s/  DAVID C. OWEN                      |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|               | David  C. Owen                          |
|               | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |
|               | * *                                |
| June 30, 2005 | * *                                |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ICOPDigital, Inc. and will be retained by ICOP Digital, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2118 

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 Florida. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2004 

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida (for himself and Mr. NELSON of Florida) 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 Florida. 

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 FLORIDA. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860C–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 2118 IS 

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

2 end the following: 

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

4 area shall not include an MSA any portion of which 

5 is within the State of Florida.’’. 

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
LASER

COMMUNICATIONS

More Data.

More Science.

More Discovery.

MORE DATA

IN A SINGLE TRANSMISSION THAN COMPARABLE 

RADIO FREQUENCY SYSTEMS.

HIGHER DATA RATES

SMALLER

POWER NEEDS

INCREASED

SECURITY

SMALLER

SIZE AND 

WEIGHT
In 2013, NASA demonstrated 622 megabits per 

second from the lunar region. This started SCaN’s 

laser communications infusion effort.

NASA’s Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) program office 

is integrating laser communications into multiple missions.

The Terabyte InfraRed 

Delivery (TBIRD) system, 

launched in 2022, achieved 

NASA’s highest ever laser 

communications data rate at 

200 gigabits per second.

In 2021, NASA launched the Laser Communications 

Relay Demonstration (LCRD) to showcase the 

benefits of a laser communications relay satellite 

and conduct a variety of experiments.

On the Psyche mission, NASA will test laser 

communications against extreme distances and 

challenging pointing constraints. 

LCRD’s first user will be installed on the 

International Space Station and complete a laser 

system from low-Earth orbit to geosynchronous 

orbit to Earth. 

A laser communications terminal called O2O will 

fly aboard Artemis II, demonstrating lasers on a 

crewed lunar mission.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Goddard Space Flight Center

8800 Greenbelt Road

Greenbelt, MD 20771

www.nasa.gov/goddard

www.nasa.gov

LG-2022-12-922-GSFC

nasa.gov/lasercomms

twitter.com/NASALaserComm

Want to learn more about 

optical communications?

LLCD

TBIRD

ILLUMA-T O2O

LCRD

DSOC
#### Priscilla Brooks, Appellant, v Village of Horseheads et al., Respondents.

[788 NYS2d 437]

Mugglin, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mulvey, J.), entered February 23, 2004 in Chemung County, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In 1994, through a cooperative effort involving volunteers, municipal employees and contractors, defendant Village of Horseheads, in Chemung County, constructed a concession stand/picnic pavillion in one of its municipal parks. This structure was built on a concrete slab. Adjacent to the concrete slab is a concrete sidewalk. Plaintiff alleges that she was injured *757when she tripped on the edge of the concrete slab because of a height differential between the slab and the adjacent sidewalk. Supreme Court, finding both that the differential was too trivial to be actionable and that plaintiff was not exempt from complying with the prior written notice of a defect provision contained in the Village’s municipal code, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appeals.

It is undisputed that the Village code requires prior written notice of defective, out of repair, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed park property as a condition precedent to maintaining any civil action against the Village for damages or injuries caused by any such defective condition. Noncompliance with the ordinance is fatal to the maintenance of a cause of action unless an exception to the rule is applicable. One of two recognized exceptions is that the municipality “created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence” *(Amabile v City of Buffalo,*93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]). Plaintiff asserts that this exception is applicable herein. As defendant has demonstrated that it did not receive prior written notice, it is plaintiffs burden to prove that this exception is applicable *(see Hinkley v Village of Ballston Spa,*306 AD2d 612, 613 [2003]). In our view, plaintiff has not met this burden. In order to demonstrate that the municipality created a dangerous condition by an affirmative act of negligence, plaintiff would have to show that the sidewalk was constructed at a level lower than the adjacent concrete pad. No such evidence is contained in this record. Moreover, since the sidewalk is exposed to the elements and the pad is covered by a roof, the eaves of which drip onto the sidewalk, it is just as plausible that the differential in height was caused by the elements during the seven years between the date of construction and the date of the accident. Absent proof that the Village created the defective condition and that plaintiff complied with the prior written notice provisions of the municipal code, Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. This determination makes it unnecessary for us to consider the alternative ground of dismissal that the defect was too trivial to be actionable.

Mercure, J.R, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27718]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting; Meeting No. 10-05

November 4, 2010.
    The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on November 
4, 2010, at the TVA Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Training Center 
Auditorium, Shaw Road & Nuclear Plant Road, Athens, Alabama 35611, to 
consider the matters listed below. The public may comment on any agenda 
item or subject at a public listening session which begins at 9 a.m. 
CDT. Immediately following the end of the public listening session, the 
meeting will be called to order to consider the agenda items listed 
below. Please Note: Speakers must pre-register online at TVA.gov or 
sign in before the meeting begins at 9 a.m. on the day of the meeting. 
The Board will answer questions from the news media following the Board 
meeting.

Status:  Open.

Agenda

Old Business

    Approval of minutes of August 20, 2010, Board Meeting.

New Business

    1. Welcome.
    2. President's Report.
    3. Chairman's Report.
    A. Board Governance matters, including the creation of the TVA 
Board Nuclear Oversight Committee and Committee membership assignments.
    4. Report of the Audit, Risk, and Regulation Committee.
    A. Selection of TVA's External Auditor for Fiscal Year 2011.
    5. Report of the People and Performance Committee.
    A. Compensation and Incentive Pay.
    B. Medco Contract Extension.
    6. Report of the Finance, Rates, and Portfolio Committee.
    A. Section 13 Tax Equivalent Payments for Fiscal Year 2011.
    B. Corporate insurance contract with Marsh.
    C. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Capacity Project.
    7. Report of the Customer and External Relations Committee.
    A. Revised Policy on Renewable Energy Standards.
    B. Transfer of the Monticello-East Kentucky 69-KV transmission line 
and associated easements.
    C. Adoption of Board Practice: Delegation for Land Transactions.
    D. Douglas Nolichucky Land Plan.
    E. Regional Resource Stewardship Council member approval.

For more information:  Please call TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-
6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. People who plan to attend the meeting and 
have special needs should call (865) 632-6000. Anyone who wishes to 
comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA 
Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

    Dated: October 28, 2010.
Ralph E. Rodgers,
Acting General Counsel and Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27718 Filed 10-29-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
```
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1681

To exempt the natural aging process in the determination of the production 

period for distilled spirits under section 263A of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 30 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 29), 2003

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To exempt the natural aging process in the determination 

of the production period for distilled spirits under section 

263A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF NATURAL AGING PROCESS IN 

4 DETERMINATION OF PRODUCTION PERIOD 

5 FOR DISTILLED SPIRITS UNDER SECTION 

6 263A. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 263A(f) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general exceptions) is 
2

•S 1681 IS 

1 amended by adding at the end the following new para2 graph: 

3 ‘‘(5) EXEMPTION OF NATURAL AGING PROCESS

4 IN DETERMINATION OF PRODUCTION PERIOD FOR

5 DISTILLED SPIRITS.—For purposes of this sub6 section, the production period for distilled spirits 

7 shall be determined without regard to any period al8 located to the natural aging process.’’. 

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

10 this section shall apply to production periods beginning 

11 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

In the Interest of M.A.B. and D.R.W., )

children. )

)

)

M.B., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-1623

)

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

FAMILIES AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM )

PROGRAM, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 25, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Polk County; Michelle Pincket, Judge.

Ryan Thomas Truskowski of Ryan Thomas 

Truskowski, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of 

Appeals, Florida Statewide Guardian ad 

Litem Office, Tallahassee for Appellee.

Morgan Lyle Weinstein, Pro Bono, 

Defending Best Interests Project, Florida 

Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, 

Weinstein Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, 

on behalf of M.B. and D.W.

PER CURIAM.
- 2 -

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.