alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Excerpts from the CAIB Report

"As the White House, Congress, and NASA Headquarters plan the future of human space flight, the 

goals and resources required to achieve them safely must be aligned."

"Based on NASA's history of ignoring external recommendations, or making improvements that 

atrophy with time, the Board has no confidence that the Space Shuttle can be safely operated for 

more than a few years based solely on renewed post-accident vigilance."

The Space Shuttle "has never met any of its original requirements for reliability, cost, ease of 

turnaround, maintainability, or, regrettably, safety."

"NASA's current organization does not provide effective checks and balances, does not have an 

independent safety program, and has not demonstrated the characteristics of a learning 

organization."

"The changes we recommend will be difficult to accomplish - and will be internally resisted."

"If NASA will accept this prescription and take the "medicine" prescribed, we may be optimistic 

regarding the program's future; if, however, NASA settles back into its previous mindset of saying, 

'Thanks for your contribution to human space flight,' summarily ignoring what it chooses to ignore, 

the outlook is bleak for the future of the program." [From Appendix D, Supplementary Views of 

Brig. Gen. Duane Deal, CAIB Board Member]

Regarding the Safety Culture:

"The attitudes and decision-making of Shuttle Program managers and engineers during the events 

leading up to this accident were clearly overconfident and often bureaucratic in nature."

"Program managers created huge barriers against dissenting opinions by stating preconceived 

conclusions based on subjective knowledge and experience, rather than on solid data. Managers 

demonstrated little concern for mission safety."

"The safety personnel present in the Debris Assessment Team, Mission Evaluation Room, and on 

the Mission Management Team were largely silent."

"In briefing after briefing, interview after interview, NASA remained in denial: in the agency's eyes 

'there were no safety-of-flight issues,' and no safety compromises."

"A pattern of acceptance prevailed throughout the organization."

"NASA's safety system does not effectively manage risk."

"Hazard analysis processes are applied inconsistently across systems, subsystems, assemblies, and 

components."

Of the 4,222 Criticality 1/1R Items, "3,233 have waivers... (and) 36 percent of these waivers have 

not been reviewed in 10 years."
"The Board could not find adequate application of a process, database, or metric analysis tool that 

took an integrated, systemic view of the entire Space Shuttle system."

"The Safety and Mission Assurance Pre-Launch Assessment Review process is not recognized by 

the Space Shuttle Program as a requirement that must be followed."

"NASA's views of its safety culture...did not reflect reality... NASA's blind spot is it believes it has 

a strong safety culture."
NASA Advisory Council Recommendation 

COSPAR 

2018-03-03 (RPC-03) 

Recommendation: 

NASA should establish a multi-disciplinary task force of experts from industry, the scientific 

community, and relevant government agencies, to develop U.S. policies that properly balance the 

legitimate need to protect against the harmful contamination of the Earth or other celestial bodies 

with the scientific, social, and economic benefits of public and private space missions. The 

recommended multi-disciplinary task force should be tasked with producing a detailed policy, 

provided to a joint session of the NAC Regulatory and Policy Committee, the Science 

Committee, and the Human Exploration and Operations Committee, that will describe best 

practices for the Administration, the science and research community, and private sector, to 

protect against harmful contamination and adverse changes in the environment of the Earth. The 

multi-disciplinary task force should also explore the use of the term 'Planetary Protection' 

relative to other terms utilized in .the Outer Space Treaty. 

Major Reasons for the Recommendation: 

The COSP AR regulations are becoming obsolete and do not properly account for the 

possibilities of human spaceflight and private sector missions. Creating a multi-disciplinary 

team to craft a balanced policy that can be implemented by NASA ( and eventually COSP AR 

itself) will help to encourage new, innovative, human spaceflight, robotic, and private sector 

missions to Mars and other celestial bodies. The more of these missions that take place the more 

science, exploration, and commerce can be conducted. 

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation: 

If NASA adopts the COSPAR guidelines without any review or revisions they will have a 

chilling effect on robotic, human spaceflight, and private sector missions. The costs and 

complexity of conducting space missions will not be moderated and could become problematic. 

The result will be less science, exploration, and commercial activities, harming both national and 

global interests. 

NASA Response: 

NASA concurs with the recommendation. The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) 

currently is establishing a Planetary Protection Independent Review Board, of approximately 

10-15 members and short-term in nature, to assess and provide updates to biological 

contamination guidelines developed by the international Committee on Space Research 

(COSPAR). The Planetary Protection Independent Review Board's assessment will include 

analysis of the scientific, engineering, industrial, legal, and program management aspects of 

planetary protection. Results of the assessment will be documented in a non-consensus final 

report presentation, and the Independent Review Board will brief NASA, NASA advisory 

committees, and external stakeholders as appropriate. 

Enclosure
#### CITIBANK, N.A. v. URBAN RECYCLE ONE ASSOCIATES. ROBERT B. WHITNEY v. 700 RIVER ROAD REALTY, INC.

May 8, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUIS RAUL AGUAYO-CASTRO, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-1511

(D.C. No. 1:11-CR-00033-REB-1)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, HOLMES, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This is a pro se direct criminal appeal filed more than twenty-one months after 

entry of judgment.

In a criminal appeal, the defendant’s notice of appeal is to be filed within 14 days 

of entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). This rule is an “inflexible claimprocessing rule[], which unlike a jurisdictional rule, may be forfeited if not properly 

raised by the government.” United States v. Garduno, 506 F.3d 1287, 1291 (10th Cir. 

2007) (internal quotation omitted). 

However, “[b]ecause Rule 4(b) implicates important interests beyond those of the 

parties, we hold that this court may raise its time bar sua sponte. This power, however, is 

limited and should not be invoked when judicial resources and administration are not 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 2, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-1511 Document: 01019392161 Date Filed: 03/02/2015 Page: 1 
2

implicated and the delay has not been inordinate.” United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 

740, 750 (10th Cir. 2008). 

Under the facts of this case, dismissal is appropriate. The defendant’s allegations 

that counsel failed to file a timely notice of appeal may only be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 

2255 motion. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003); United States v. 

Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1242 (10th Cir. 1995).

APPEAL DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Ellen Rich Reiter

 Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 14-1511 Document: 01019392161 Date Filed: 03/02/2015 Page: 2
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.24



Schedule II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
(in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Column A                   Column B           Column C -- Additions          Column D          Column E
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Balance at          Charged to   Charged                             Balance
                              beginning of         costs and    to other                            at end
   Description                  period              expenses    accounts         Deductions        of period
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                           <C>                 <C>           <C>             <C>               <C>
Allowance for bad debts

Year ended December 31, 1997    $  --               $   29        $  --             $  --           $ 29
Year ended December 31, 1998       29                   91           --                --            120
Year ended December 31, 1999      120                  100           --                 5            215


Returns, discounts, allowances
and price protection

Year ended December 31, 1997    $  --               $   10        $  --             $  --           $ 10
Year ended December 31, 1998       10                  271           --               162            119
Year ended December 31, 1999      119                1,520           --             1,124            515
</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Anthony Greicius","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/anthony-greicius-116962jpl-nasa-gov\/","title":"NASA\u2019s Perseverance Mars Rover Mission Honors Navajo Language","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"97MXSJDfNw\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/jpl\/nasas-perseverance-mars-rover-mission-honors-navajo-language\/\">NASA\u2019s Perseverance Mars Rover Mission Honors Navajo Language<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/jpl\/nasas-perseverance-mars-rover-mission-honors-navajo-language\/embed\/#?secret=97MXSJDfNw\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s Perseverance Mars Rover Mission Honors Navajo Language” — NASA\" data-secret=\"97MXSJDfNw\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/1-canyon-de-chelly-national-monument-1041.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
Exhibit 10.20
 SUPERVISORY AGREEMENT
  WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS




---



##### 



NOW THEREFORE
 Business Plan.




---



##### 



1
       Problem Assets.
  
 1
    
    A modification shall be considered material
under this Paragraph if the Association plans to: (a) engage in any activity
that is inconsistent with the Business Plan; or (b) exceed the level of any
activity contemplated in the Business Plan by more than ten percent (10%).




---



##### 



2 3
       
 2
    
    For purposes of this Paragraph, reduce
means to sell real estate owned (REO) and to collect, sell, charge off, or
improve the quality of a loan sufficient to warrant its removal from adverse
criticism or classification.3
    
    The term Problem Assets shall include all
REO and adversely classified assets.




---



##### 



Loan Modification Documentation.
  Concentrations of Credit.




---



##### 



Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses.
  Dividends and Other Capital Distributions.
  Growth.




---



##### 



Golden Parachute Payments.
 4
 Directorate and Management Changes.
 5
 Employment Contracts and Compensation Arrangements.
  Third Party Contracts.
  
 4
    
    The term golden parachute payment is defined at 12 C.F.R. § 359.1(f).5
    
    The term Senior Executive Officer is
defined at 12 C.F.R. § 563.555.




---



##### 



6
 Effective Date.
  Duration.
  Time Calculations.
  Submissions and Notices.
   
 6
    
    A contract will be considered significant to
the overall operation or financial condition of the Association where the
annual contract amount equals or exceeds two percent (2%) of the Associations
total capital, where there is a foreign service provider, or where it involves
information technology that is critical to the Associations daily operations
without regard to the contract amount.




---



##### 



(a)
    
    To:
    
    the OTSRegional DirectorOffice of Thrift SupervisionOne South Wacker Drive, Suite 2000Chicago, Illinois 60606Facsimile: (312) 917-5001(b)
    
    To:
    
    the AssociationChairman of the BoardHome Federal Savings Bank1016 Civic Center DriveRochester, Minnesota 55901Facsimile: (507) 535-1300
 No Violations Authorized.
  OTS Authority Not Affected.
  Other Governmental Actions Not Affected.




---



##### 



Miscellaneous.
      Enforceability of Agreement.
  Signature of Directors/Board Resolution.




---



##### 



WHEREFORE
 HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK
    
    
    
    OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISIONRochester, Minnesota/s/ Timothy R. Geisler
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Daniel T. McKeeTimothy R. Geisler, Chairman
    
    
    
    
    
    Daniel T. McKee

Regional Director, Central Region/s/ Allan R. DeBoerAllan R. DeBoer, Director
 /s/ Michael J. FogartyMichael J. Fogarty, Director/s/ Karen L. HimleKaren L. Himle, Director/s/ Susan K. KollingSusan K. Kolling, Director/s/ Bradley C. KrehbielBradley C. Krehbiel, Director/s/ Malcolm W. McDonaldMalcolm W. McDonald, Director/s/ Mahlon C. SchneiderMahlon C. Schneider, Director/s/ Hugh C. SmithHugh C. Smith, Director
#### Taylor Crane *v.*Rill Cox.

Judgment — Rendered at same Term of Confession — Motion to Set Aside.

If a final judgment be rendered at the same term upon a confession on motion, the court should set it aside, and a refusal to do so is reversable error; but not erroneous on a non order of confession when the final judgment was not rendered until the succeeding term, and when no defense was presented.

Misprisions — Judgment and Final Orders Corrected.

Sec. 579 Civ. Code, which authorizes the court, at a subsequent term, to correct its misprision, applies to judgments or final orders.

APPEAL PROM JEPPERSON CIRCUIT COURT. C. P.

September 18, 1868.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams:

Although the order of confession was premature, the process not having been executed ten days before the commencement of that term, and should have been set aside on mere motion, which was made at the same term of the court, though more than three days had elapsed, yet as no final judgment was rendered until the succeeding term in May when defendant again moved to be permitted to file an answer which was overruled, we cannot say that the record presents any reversable error.

No answer seems to have been permitted, at least none appears in the record, hence, neither the court below nor this court could or can determine that the defendant had any real substantial defense, and, therefore, we cannot determine that any substantial injustice has been done the defendant, especially as there was an enquiry and jury to assess the damages, sworn immediately after the overruling his motion.

Had the confession at the previous term been set aside and no legal defense presented it would have resulted in another order of confession, without answer, hence, the most that can be said is that the premature order of confession was merely technically erroneous. The final judgment was not prematurely rendered, for it stood for trial at that term under any of the special acts ap*466plicable to the Jefferson Court of Common Pleas, process having been served over 15 days and also over 20 days before the term.

Bullitt, *for appellant.*

*Bullock*& *Anderson, for appellee.*

Had the final judgment been rendered at the same term of the confession, as it would have been premature, the court should have set it aside, and on refusal this court would have reversed, but not so on a non order of confession, when the final judgment was not rendered until the succeeding term and when no defense was then presented.

Sec. 579, Civ. Code, which authorizes the court at a subsequent term to correct its misprision, applies to *“judgments or final orders”*and section 580 designates the mode of proceeding to get the correction that is on “motion upon reasonable notice”; had notice and motion thereon regularly appeared, still unless answer and defense had been presented, no substantial benefit to the defendant would have been gained, as another order of confession would have been immediately entered.

Had a substantial defense appeared in this record, the whole aspect of the case would have been different.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed with damages.
#### R. J. Patterson *v.*S. G. Hutchison et al.

Husband and Wife — Wife’s Separate Estate for Life — Remainder to Children Held in Trust — Mortgage with Consent of donor.

The husband bought and paid for land and had the legal title conveyed to himself in trust for the separate use of his wife and of her children during life and after her death the remainder for said children: Held, that the husband was not only trustee but donor of the trust, and had a legal right in conjunction with his wife to sell or mortgage her interest for her support.

APPEAL PROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT.

October 14, 1868.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Robertson :

In. this case the husband bought and paid for the land and had the legal tifie conveyed to himself in trust for the separate and exclusive use of his wife and of the children of her body during her life and after her death, the remainder for said children.

Constructively, the right of the children was a remainder only. The separate use during their mother’s life (meaning separate from her husband) could not reasonably apply to them, and if it could, it would have been incongruous and absurd to give to them a freehold estate for life, and then add to it the remainder in fee simple. Consequently, the mother was entitled to hold the whole usufruct during her life.

And, under the authority of the 17 th section of Oh. 47, Art. 4, *461Rev. Statutes, and of the Amendatory act of 1866, Myers’ Suppt. p. 728, the husband who was not only trustee but'substantial donor of the trust, had legal authority in conjunction with the wife to sell or mortgage for her support her interest. To that extent therefore, the mortgagee in this case" has a right to a sale for the payment of his mortgage debt.

*Kincheloe*& *Lewis, Walker, for appellant.*

*(Jofer, for appellees.*

But the circuit court construing her interest as only one-sixth of the life estate, jointly with her five children, limited the sale to that sixth.

This we adjudge erroneous.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a decree subjecting to sale- the entire life estate.
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 23

AN ACT

To provide for a 5-month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 and

for a transition period for individuals receiving compensation when the program under such Act ends.

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

2

S 23 ES

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY EXTENDED

2 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF

3 2002.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 208 of the Temporary Ex5 tended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public

6 Law 107–147; 116 Stat. 30) is amended to read as fol7 lows:

8 ‘‘SEC. 208. APPLICABILITY.

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

10 (b), an agreement entered into under this title shall apply

11 to weeks of unemployment—

12 ‘‘(1) beginning after the date on which such

13 agreement is entered into; and

14 ‘‘(2) ending before June 1, 2003.

15 ‘‘(b) TRANSITION FOR AMOUNT REMAINING IN AC16 COUNT.—

17 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraphs (2)

18 and (3), in the case of an individual who has

19 amounts remaining in an account established under

20 section 203 as of May 31, 2003, temporary extended

21 unemployment compensation shall continue to be

22 payable to such individual from such amounts for

23 any week beginning after such date for which the in24 dividual meets the eligibility requirements of this

25 title.
†

3

S 23 ES

1 ‘‘(2) NO AUGMENTATION AFTER MAY 31, 2003.—

2 If the account of an individual is exhausted after

3 May 31, 2003, then section 203(c) shall not apply

4 and such account shall not be augmented under such

5 section, regardless of whether such individual’s State

6 is in an extended benefit period (as determined

7 under paragraph (2) of such section).

8 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION.—No compensation shall be

9 payable by reason of paragraph (1) for any week be10 ginning after August 30, 2003.’’.

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

12 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact13 ment of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Com14 pensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–147; 116 Stat.

15 21).

Passed the Senate January 7, 2003.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 23

AN ACT

To provide for a 5-month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation

Act of 2002 and for a transition period for individuals receiving compensation when the programunder such Act ends.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
   March 31, 2009
    /s/  David T. StonerDate
    David T. StonerChief Executive Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
   March 31, 2009
    /s/  Laurie L. LathamDate
    Laurie L. LathamChief Financial Officer