alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Space Radiation
- About Space Radiation
- Meet the Team
- HRP Home

# 					About the Space Radiation Element				

						The Space Radiation Element (SRE) of NASA’s Human Research Program (HRP) seeks to characterize human health outcomes associated with space radiation exposure, helping the space agency build strategies that protect astronaut health and ensure safe human spaceflight.					

Encyclopedia

Once astronauts venture beyond Earth’s protective atmosphere, they will be exposed to increased levels of ionizing radiation from two main sources: energetic particles from the Sun and galactic cosmic rays. This ionizing radiation can travel through living tissues, depositing energy that causes structural damage to DNA and alters many cellular processes.

Scientists do not fully understand all the specific ways in which this ionizing radiation affects the human body. To learn more, NASA’s HRP created SRE.

SRE’s goal is to develop the knowledge base required by NASA to predict and manage the risks that deep space radiation poses to human health. These health concerns include an increased risk for cancers, damage to the central nervous system, degenerative diseases like cataracts and heart disease, as well as acute radiation sickness.

To accomplish this goal, SRE scientists and partners conduct research at ground-based facilities, including the NASA Space Radiation Laboratory at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Loma Linda University Proton Treatment Center. Experiments performed at these facilities mimic conditions of space’s radiation environment. Results from tests help scientists build risk models, investigate the genetic consequences of radiation to biological systems, and develop better methods to shield spacecraft.

SRE research seeks to:
        - reduce the uncertainties in risk predictions for cancer and acute radiation risks
        - provide information to develop risk projection models for central nervous system and other degenerative tissue risks
        - better understand the mechanisms of biological damage that underlie radiation health risks
        - produce biological safeguards against radiation risks.

Individual and team investigators interested in working with SRE specifically and HRP in general can learn more at HRP’s collaboration portal. To contact the SRE team, email them at jsc-hrp-space-radiation-element at mail.nasa.gov.

## 

## Human Research Program

Science dedicated to protecting the health and performance of astronauts in space.
* This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral

argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and

10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 21, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

FRANCISCO NUNEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-3064

(D.C. No. 5:09-CR-40039-RDR-1)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, O’BRIEN, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the

appeal waiver contained in defendant Francisco Nunez’s plea agreement. The

defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and

dispense 500 grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of

methamphetamine. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant waived his

Appellate Case: 10-3064 Document: 01018460718 Date Filed: 07/21/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

right to appeal his conviction or his sentence, provided his sentence was within

the statutory maximum authorized by law and within the advisory sentencing

guideline range determined by the district court to apply. The defendant’s

sentence was below the statutory maximum and within the advisory guideline

range. Nevertheless, the defendant filed a notice of appeal. 

The government filed a motion to enforce the plea agreement pursuant to

United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 

In response, the defendant concedes through counsel that there are no nonfrivolous arguments that can be presented in response to the motion to enforce. 

We have reviewed the motion, the record and the defendant’s response, and we

agree that the defendant’s proposed appeal falls within the scope of the appeal

waiver, that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, and that

enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See id.,

359 F.3d at 1325 (describing the factors this court considers when determining

whether to enforce a waiver of appellate rights).

Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and

DISMISS the appeal. Counsel for appellant is reminded that the fee remains due

in this appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM

Appellate Case: 10-3064 Document: 01018460718 Date Filed: 07/21/2010 Page: 2
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 39

• Economic Output $7,281,000

• State Tax Revenue $178,000

Moon to Mars Campaign State Impacts

• Jobs Supported 2

• Economic Output $643,000

• State Tax Revenue $11,000

Investments in Climate Change Research & 

Technology State Impacts

• Jobs Supported 17

• Economic Output $2,866,000

• State Tax Revenue $76,000

Sample Obligations(3)

Business $124,950 

• Other Than Small Business $0 

• Small Business $124,950 

 – 8(A) Program $0 

 – Economically Disadvantaged Women 

 Owned Small Business $0 

 – Historically Underutilized Business 

 (HUBZone) $0 

 – Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small

 Business $0 

 – Small Business Innovative Research $124,950 

 – Small Disadvantaged Business $0 

 – Veteran Owned Small Business $0 

 – Woman Owned Small Business $0 

 – Small Business Only $0 

Educational $1,522,926 

Government $0 

Non-profit Institutions $22,725 

Leading State-based NASA Business 

Contractors

Scientific Simulations $124,950 

Leading State-based NASA Education Funding 

University of Wyoming $1,522,926 

Space Grant Consortium 

University of Wyoming $800,000

WYOMING

FY21 State Procurement Investments (2) $3 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

James Webb Space Telescope

Cycle 1 Hours of Access

There are 2 NASA Federal jobs and 28* contractors in the state 

of Wyoming. 

For every NASA federal job located in Wyoming, an additional 

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

million dollars’ worth of economic output generated by NASA 

federal jobs, an additional $6.7** 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

WYOMING

39

NASA Jobs

Supported

A snow-covered Boysen State 

Park and a frozen Boysen 

Reservoir in Wyoming are 

pictured from the International 

Space Station as it orbited 261 

miles above the western United 

States.

Two Wyoming suppliers 

contributed to NASA’s Artemis 

program. An example of the 

state’s contributions is providing 

cable ties, tapes, cords and 

more.

Wyoming Institutions

249.6

Hours
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KEVIN BRAY.

September 24, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
9:00 to 9:10 AM Welcome and Announcements

9:10 to 9:30 PM Work Plan and Schedule Review

9:30 to 10:30 AM FY19 ARMD Budget and Strategy

10:30 to 11:30 AM System Wide Safety Report

11:30 AM to 1:00 PM Lunch and Ethics Training (non-public)

1:00 - 2:00 PM Advanced Materials and Structures Research

2:00 to 2:15 PM Break

2:15 to 3:15 PM Electric Aircraft Technology Development

3:15 to 3:50 PM Committee Deliberations

3:50 to 4:00 PM Public Comment Period

4:00 PM Adjourn

JOIN WEBEX MEETING https://nasa.webex.com/

14-Mar-18

https://nasa.webex.com/nasa/j.php?MTID=m33406067f2cc6a60f71243237dd7b226

Meeting number: 995 710 031 

Meeting password: T94G2Y3@

JOIN BY PHONE

Toll Free: 1-844-467-6272

Passcode: 317924

300 E Street, SW

Washington, DC

Room 6E40

Wednesday, March 14 (Sessions are public except as noted)

NAC Aeronautics Committee Public Agenda (FINAL)

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

NASA Headquarters
##### 



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 on
Form 10-K of Harris Interactive Inc. (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce A. Newman,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and 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 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



| |            |                    
| | ---------- | -------------------
| | Signature: | /s/ BRUCE A. NEWMAN

| |                         
| | ------------------------
| |                         
| | Bruce A. Newman         
| | Chief Financial Officer,
| | Secretary and Treasurer 

Dated: September 8, 2004
#### DURHAM VIDEO & NEWS, INC. v. DURHAM BD. OF ADJUST.

No. 486P01

Case below: 144 N.C. App. 236

Notice of appeal by plaintiff pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question) dismissed ex mero motu 8 November 2001. Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 November 2001.
Compass



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 20, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00874

- CV

Juan Alberto CASTILLO and Ana L. Perez, Appella nt s

v.

COMPASS BANK, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CVD

- 000024

- L2 Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On September 23 , 2014 , appellant s Juan Alberto Castillo and Ana L. Perez filed separate notices of appeal from the trial court’s August 27 , 201 4 judgment. On December 15 , 2014

, appellant s filed separate affidavit s of in digency in this court. By order dated January 20, 2015,

w e construed the affidavit s as motion s for extension of time to file the affidavit s in the trial court and granted the motions

. See H iggins v. Randall County Sheriff’s Office , 257 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. 2008). In that same order, w e ordered the clerk of this court to send copies of the affidavit s and

our order to the district clerk, the court reporter, and all parties. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(d)(2). We further ordered that anyon e who desired to file a contest to the affidavits to file such contests in this court on or before January 30, 2015.

No contests were filed. Because no contests were filed, appellants are considered indigent for purposes of this appeal. Both the cler k’s record and the reporter’s record have been filed in this court. Accordingly, we ordered appellants to file their appellants’ briefs in this court

on or before January 13, 2015

. Neither appellant has filed a brief.

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant Juan Alberto Castillo and appellant Ana L. Perez to
file his and her briefs and written responses reasonably explaining their failure s to timely file

their briefs in this court on or before March 30, 2015

. If appellant Juan Alberto Ca stillo fails to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we will dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a). Likewise, i f appellant Ana L. Perez fails to file a brief and the written response by the date ord ered, we will dismiss her appeal for want of prosecution.

See id

.We order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on both appellants and all

counsel.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of March, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) TO BE FURNISHED BUT NOT FILED

               Certifications 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 Infocrossing, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Zach
Lonstein and William J. McHale, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Senior
Vice President of Finance, respectively, 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; 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/ ZACH LONSTEIN                        /s/ WILLIAM J. McHALE
------------------------------------     ---------------------------------------
Zach Lonstein                            William J. McHale
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer     SVP-Finance and Chief Financial Officer

August 9, 2006                           August 9, 2006
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 29, 2014

No. 04-14-00722-CR

Samuel Stephen BIGGS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR1339W

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to 

raise on appeal. Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion to withdraw to appellant, Samuel 

Stephen Biggs, and explained to Biggs his rights to review the record, file a pro se brief, and file 

a pro se petition for discretionary review if this court determines the appeal is frivolous. See 

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). In addition counsel’s letter advised 

appellant to immediately file a motion in this court if he wished to review the appellate record 

and enclosed a form motion for this purpose. See id. No timely request for record was filed in 

this court. 

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that he do so on or before January 28, 

2015. The State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant files 

a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later 

than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel is held in abeyance 

pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988) (holding that 

a motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews the 

record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that the appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman 

v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same). Accordingly, no new attorney 

will be appointed for appellant at this time.
We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his 

counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court. 

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of December, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 16, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10152 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN DOMINGO CORTEZ, also known as J.D. Cortez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

-------------------- ON REHEARING
Before GARZA, DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: We granted panel rehearing in light of the holding in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) that Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) is applicable to the federal sentencing guidelines. We now withdraw our earlier opinion and substitute the following. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 40(a)(4)(C). Juan Domingo Cortez appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to theft or embezzlement concerning programs receiving federal funds and aiding and abetting. Cortez wasNo. 04-10152 -2- sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 63 months to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Cortez was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $805,083.55 and a fine of $20,000. The Government filed a motion to dismiss based on an appeal waiver in Cortez’s plea agreement. The record reflects that Cortez knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence in his plea agreement and, thus, that the waiver was validly made. United States v. Robinson , 187 F.3d 516, 517 (5th Cir. 1999). However, Cortez argues that he did not waive the right to appeal a sentence above the statutory maximum as that term was defined in Blakely

. The language in the appellate waiver must be afforded its plain meaning in accord with the intent of the parties at the time the plea agreement was executed. United States v. McKinney , F.3d , No. 04-41223, 2005 WL 887153 at *2-3 (5th Cir. Apr. 15, 2005). There is no indication that the parties intended that the exception in the appellate waiver for “a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum punishment” would have a meaning other than its ordinary and natural meaning. Id. ; see United States v. Rubbo , 396 F.3d 1330, 1334-35 (11th Cir. 2005); United
States v. West , 392 F.3d 450, 460-61 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Thus, the exception for a sentence imposed above the statutory maximum shall be afforded its natural and ordinary meaning of “the upperNo. 04-10152 -3- limit of punishment that Congress has legislatively specified for violations of a statute.” Rubbo , 396 F.3d at 1334-35. The maximum statutory sentence that could be imposed for Cortez’s offense was ten years. 18 U.S.C. § 666(a). His 63- month sentence does not fall within the exception to the appeal waiver. The waiver is upheld, the Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992).
Filed 12/15/09 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2009 ND 199

In the Matter of Jeffrey Keith Wolff 

Birch P. Burdick, 

Cass County State’s Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

Jeffrey Keith Wolff, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20090210

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Frank L. Racek, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Birch P. Burdick, State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 2806, Fargo, N.D. 58108-2806, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.

Richard E. Edinger, P.O. Box 1295, Fargo, N.D. 58107-1295, for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.

Matter of Wolff

No. 20090210

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Jeffrey Wolff appeals a district court order denying his petition for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual, claiming the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has serious difficulty controlling his behavior.

[¶2]We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
{"agency":"NASA","generated":"2019-04-08 15:21:09","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"}],"value":"2019"},{"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":"9"}],"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":["2","9","1","16","76","23","24","18","11","6","6"," ","6","2"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["2","10","6","25","59","18","23","17","12","4","5"," ","6","3"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["1","1","10","8","19"," ","8","3","1","10","8"," ","2"," "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2019","quarter":"Q2"}