alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Partnering with NASA STEM Engagement

Statement of Interest

Review Criteria

Statements of Interest will be reviewed against the following criteria: Alignment to NASA, 

Overall Impact, and Management.

Alignment to NASA

• Organization and requested partnership activities are consistent with NASA STEM

Engagement mission, objectives, strategies, and partnership priorities.

• The partner presents a plan to provide all or a substantial portion of resulting 

content/programming to US students and teachers at no-cost.

Overall Impact

• Benefit to NASA and Partner: Extent to which partnership describes a substantive 

benefit to both NASA and the Partner.

• Partnership Reach: Extent to which partnership will engage students at a scale 

NASA could not reach independently.

• Broadening Participation: Extent to which partnership will engage students from 

groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers.

• Sustainability: Partnership results in products, resources, or publications that can 

be used by the public outside the partnership term.

• NASA Resource Commitment: Estimated level and availability of NASA 

resources (civil servant and contractor labor, facilities, etc.), necessary to support the 

request.

Management

• Viability: Extent to which organization demonstrates ability to fulfill proposed 

responsibilities within stated timeline and meet financial requirements to complete 

partnership activities.

• Organizational Roles: Anticipated roles of NASA and Partner are clearly defined 

and led by Partner.

• Alignment to NASA Policy: Requested partnership activities do not violate any 

NASA policies or regulations.

Review Process

Statements of Interest are evaluated by a small team within the Office of STEM 

Engagement against the stated criteria. Reviews are shared with Mission Directorates and 

Office of General Counsel for further review. OSTEM senior leadership maintains final 

decision on whether or not to pursue a Space Act Agreement partnership or other 

collaborative relationship.

NASA takes a variety of factors into account in deciding whether or not to consider a 

Statement of Interest for a NASA partnership. Factors include, but are not limited to, 

resource availability, a positive evaluation of the Statement of Interest, cost to NASA, and 

potential for high impact outcomes. All decisions on potential partnership opportunities are 

in NASA’s sole discretion.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.11
  
  
 TH
       1.
    
    The Third Additional Space Commencement Date shall be February 17, 2006.2.
    
    Rent for February, 2006 will be prorated to reflect the Third Additional Space.3.
    
    The Termination Date for the Lease shall remain August 31, 2010.4.
    
    By execution hereof, Tenant hereby acknowledges that all improvements required of
Landlord have been satisfactorily performed and Tenant does hereby accept the Premises
delivered by Landlord as being in full compliance with the terms of the Lease.5.
    
    Except as hereby amended, the Lease shall continue in full force and effect.6.
    
    This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, executors,
successors and assigns.
  LANDLORD:
    
    TENANT:NewTower Trust CompanyMulti-Employer Property TrustA trust organized under 12 C.F.R. Section 9.18
    
    The Management Network Group, Inc.By: Kennedy Associates Real Estate Counsel, Inc.,Authorized Signatory
 By:
    
    /s/ Mark D. Reinikka
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Donald E. KlumbPrinted Name:
    
    Mark D. Reinikka
    
    
    
    Printed Name:
    
    Donald E. KlumbIts:
    
    Vice President
    
    
    
    Its:
    
    CFO
# Weighed Down

		Back to search page	

## Audience

Educators, Students

## Grade Levels

Grades 5-8, Grades 9-12

## Subject

Physical Science, Flight and Aeronautics

## Type

Lesson Plans / Activities

In the Weighed Down activity, students will learn the effects of weight on the amount of fuel consumed by an aircraft. Students will learn that everything on a plane adds to the weight which means more weight equals more fuel needed.

#### Weighed Down Activity
<PAGE>


KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
4200 Norwest Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




The Board of Directors
HMN Financial, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference of our report dated February 4, 1998,
except for Note 1, which is as of February 19, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of HMN Financial, Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and
1996, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K
of HMN Financial, Inc. in the following Registration Statements of HMN
Financial, Inc.: Nos. 33-88228, 33-94388, and 33-94386 on Form S-8.


                                           /s/  KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                                KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 26, 1998



                                      56
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Masters,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03611-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: October 18, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8329 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32**

**Certificationpursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe quarterly report of Santa Fe Energy Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not inits individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Trust.

|                             | /s/ MIKE  ULRICH |
|-----------------------------|------------------|
|                        | Mike Ulrich,     |
| Date: November 7, 2006 | Vice President   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CO-PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Eitan Gertel, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Finisar Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: June 28, 2011


/s/ Eitan GertelEitan GertelChief Executive OfficerCo-Principal Executive Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT FREEMAN.

September 18, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 13

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being
submitted in connection with the Annual Report on December 31, 2005 for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.

Paulo Guilherme Aguiar Cunha, the Chief Executive Officer, and Fabio Schvartsman, the Chief Financial Officer of
Ultrapar Participações S.A., each certifies that, to the best of their respective knowledge:



|1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Ultrapar Participações S.A.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

São Paulo, May 4, 2006



|       |  |                                               
|------ |  | ----------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Paulo Guilherme Aguiar Cunha              
|Name:  |  | Paulo Guilherme Aguiar Cunha                  
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer                       
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Fabio Schvartsman                         
|Name:  |  | Fabio Schvartsman                             
|Title: |  | Chief Financial and Investor Relations Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter Melendez, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 866]

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered June 2, 2000, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of *4xh*to 9 years and 2 to 6 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, and that the waiver encompassed his suppression claims *(see People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831 [1999]). Accordingly, review of those issues is foreclosed *(see People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 9-10 [1989]). In any event, were we to find that the waiver did not foreclose review, we would find the court properly held that there was an independent source for the complainant to make an in-court identification of defendant. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.
#### Jamie Magee, Respondent, v County of Suffolk, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[789 NYS2d 289]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant County of Suffolk appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated April 23, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by adding thereto, after the word “denied,” the words “without prejudice to renewal after discovery is completed”; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment. The motion was made before the plaintiff had an opportunity to conduct discovery, and the affidavit submitted in support of the appellant’s motion recited matters that were exclusively within the appellant’s knowledge *(see 181 S. Franklin Assoc. v Y & R Assoc.,*6 AD3d 594 [2004]; *Morris v Hochman,*296 AD2d 481 [2002]; *see also Grumman Aerospace Corp. v Rice,*199 AD2d 365 [1993]; *Reohr v Golub Corp.,*242 AD2d 850 [1997]). Thus, the appellant’s motion was premature. Accordingly, we modify *665the order so as to permit renewal of the motion after discovery is completed. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
, DEPUTY 1 ADYINImATOR 

ASSOCIATE 1 ADHINISTRATOR 

I UuEurrViomcre I 

II-, , I I I 1 ., 

I 1 OFFICI Of 1 

J 

I 

1 1 

I
#### J. G. & W. G. Thompson *v.*Luford Radford.

Pleading — Answer, Sufficient as a Counter-Claim.

An answer, tliougli deficient in not stating tlie terms of a contract, whether written or oral, where it substanially alleges fraudulent misrepresentations and specified damages resulting therefrom, will be good as a counter-claim.

APPEAL PROM BARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

October 2, 1867.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The answer, though deficient in not stating the terms of the contract nor whether written or oral, nevertheless substantially alleges fraudulent misrepresentations and specified damages as resulting therefrom, and presents a counter-claim; therefore to the extent of this claim the answer is substantially good.

Wherefore,- it seems to this court that the circuit court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the answer and thereupon rendering judgment for the amount of the note. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ADMINISTRATOR A 

JAMES M. BEGGS 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR AD 

DR. WILLIAM R. GRAHAM 

GENERAL MANAGER AS 

PHILIP E. CULBERTSON 

F”‘.... Fi 

DR. MILTON A. SILVEIRA NORMAN TERRELL 

DR HARRIElTG JENKINS STUART J. EVANS SILL D. COLVlN JOHN F MURPHY 

ASSOCIATE E r-l ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR SPACE 

SCIENCE AND 

APPLICATIONS 

I DR. BURTON I. EDELSON 

JET PROPULSION 

LABORATORY 

GODDARD SPACE 

FLIGHT CENTER 

ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR AERONAUTIC 

AND SPACE 

TECHNOLOGY 

RESEARCH CENTER 

ADMINISTRATOR 

SPACE FLIGHT 

LYNDON 6. JOHNSON 

JOHN F. KENNEDY 

SPACE CENTER 

NATIONAL SPACE 

TECHNOLOGY 

ASSOCIATE ADB 

DEPUTY 

ADMINISTRATOR 

P 

CHIEF 

SCIENTIST 

I I 1 I 

ANN P. BRADLEY DR. FRANK 8. MCDONALD 

~j:“...:~~l 

C. THOMAS NEWMAN JOHN E. O’BRIEN THOMAS P. DeCAlR ISAAC T. GILLAM, IV 

JOHN D. HODGE IACT I ROBERT 0. ALLER 

ADMINISTRATOR 

MANAGEMENT 

C. ROBERT NYSMITH
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SUB-SECTION 1350,****ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906****OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Sport-Haley, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, the undersigned ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do each certify,to our respective knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 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 result of operations of the Company. |

 

Dated:  May 15, 2003

 

 
| /s/ Kevin M.  Tomlinson  |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Kevin M.  Tomlinson      |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
|                     |
|                     |
| /s/ Patrick  W. Hurley   |   |
| Patrick W.  Hurley       |
| Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 21.1



Somera Communications, Inc.



(A Delaware Corporation)



LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



(As of December 31, 2004)



|                                       |  |                                           
|-------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                     |  | JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION OR FORMATION
|Somera Communications B.V.             |  | Netherlands                               
|Somera Communications France SARL      |  | France                                    
|Somera Communications GmbH             |  | Germany                                   
|Somera Communications (Hong Kong) Ltd. |  | Hong Kong                                 
|Somera Communications Ltd.             |  | United Kingdom                            
|Somera Communications Ltda.            |  | Brazil                                    
|Somera Communications Pte. Ltd.        |  | Singapore
#### In the Matter of Priscilla Abrams, Petitioner, v Larry D. Martin, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

[787 NYS2d 658]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Larry D. Martin, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to sign a judgment in an action entitled *Abrams v Radin & Kleinman,*pending in that court, under index No. 12899/91.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought, as the rights of the parties in the underlying action have not been finally determined *(see*CPLR 5011). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

of Chief Financial
Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of eDiets.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Hoyer, 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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:
March 11, 2010



By:

/s/ Thomas HoyerName:

Thomas HoyerTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Wednesday October 29, 2014, 10 a.m.-12 p.m.

# PLACE:

Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

# STATUS:

Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.

# Matter To Be Considered:

Decisional Matter: Safety Standard Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles—NPR.

                        A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at                         *www.cpsc.gov/​live.*

For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

Dated: October 7, 2014.

Todd A. Stevenson,

Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 2014-24336 Filed 10-8-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**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 ICOP Digital, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

 

March 24, 2006 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ICOP Digital, Inc. and will be retained by ICOP Digital, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.
#### STATE v. LEAZER

No. 419P01

Case below: 144 N.C. App. 450

Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 October 2001. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 2001. Justice Edmunds recused.
www.nasa.gov

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Answer Key

1. What is the area of this aperture in square inches (in2)?

a. 6 inches diameter → 3 inches radius

b. Areacircle = πr 2

= π × (3 in)2

= π × 9 in2

 = 28.3 in2

Now we have the area of the LCRD aperture in 

imperial units.

2. Convert the LCRD telescope aperture area above

into square centimeters (cm2) and then to square

meters (m2).

A = 28.3 in2

1 ⋅ 2.54 cm

1 in ⋅ 2.54 cm1 in = 183 cm2

A = 183 cm2

1 ⋅ 1 m

100 cm ⋅ 1 m100 cm = 0.0183 m2

The LCRD aperture in metric units is 0.183 m2.

3. What is the irradiance of the LCRD ground station at

the aperture in W/m2 ?

Irradiance units are W/m2

Power in milliWatts is given: 3,510 mW

Convert milliWatts to Watts:

3,510 mW × 1 W

1,000 mW = 3.51 W

Area in m2 is calculated above: 0.0183 m2

Express and simplify: 3.51 W

0.0183 m2 = 192 W/m2

The infrared irradiance is 192 W/m2 at the 

LCRD ground station’s aperture. (“LCRD infrared 

irradiance”)

4. What is the total solar irradiance at Earth’s surface?

Apply solar atmospheric attenuation to the total solar irradiance at

the top of the atmosphere:

= 1,368 W/m2 ⋅ 56%

= 1,368 W/m2 ⋅ 56

100

= 1,368 W/m2 ⋅ 0.56 

= 766 W/m2 of total solar irradiance at Earth’s surface

What is the infrared solar irradiance at Earth’s surface?

Calculate infrared component of total solar irradiance at surface:

= 766 W/m2 ⋅ 50% 

= 766 W/m2 ⋅ 50

100

= 766 W/m2 ⋅ 0.50 

= 383 W/m2 of infrared solar irradiance at Earth’s 

surface

5. How does the infrared solar irradiance at Earth’s

surface compare to the infrared LCRD irradiance

at the telescope aperture? Which one is larger? By

how much?

LCRD’s 192 W/m2 is almost exactly half as intense as 

the Sun’s 383 W/m2 on a cloudless, equatorial noon.

NASA Space Communications 

and Navigation

INSTRUCTOR’S GUIDE

Irradiance GRADES 10–12

For more activities like this, visit:

https://go.nasa.gov/LaserCommSTEMResources.

Additional educational activities can be found here: 

https://go.nasa.gov/ESCEducationResources.

For more opportunities to explore STEM at NASA, 

visit: https://www.nasa.gov/stem.

Do you have feedback on this activity? Email us at 

gsfc-scan-engagement@mail.nasa.gov.