alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Armstrong Supports Wind Study","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XRZaTYzpXQ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasa-armstrong-supports-wind-study\/\">NASA Armstrong Supports Wind Study<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasa-armstrong-supports-wind-study\/embed\/#?secret=XRZaTYzpXQ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Armstrong Supports Wind Study” — NASA\" data-secret=\"XRZaTYzpXQ\" 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\/2023\/08\/afrc2023-0119-55.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---
#### THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RAMON GARAY.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense Education Activity, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Appendix 2 of Title 5, United States Code, Public Law 92-463, a notice published on August 24, 2010, (FR Doc. 2010-15985), announcing the meetings of the Advisory Council on Dependents' Education (ACDE) scheduled to be held on November 12, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. and on November 19, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.; those meetings have been cancelled. A new meeting date will be announced.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Leesa Rompre at (703) 588-3128 or                         *Leesa.Rompre@hq.dodea.edu.*

Dated: October 26, 2010.

Morgan F. Park,

Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2010-27711 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
### 1/414- 4 ,61-) 

# Piek. Silver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
BRIAN KERRY O'KEEFE, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. No. 85190



# FILE

ORDERDISMISSINGAPPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a "motion for relieffromjudgment or order pursuant toRule 60 ofthe Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure based on new and equitable rules of law filed 10/2/2015". Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jacqueline M. Bluth, Judge.

Because no statute or court rule provides for an appeal frorn this order in a criminal matter, we lackjurisdiction. Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Cadish Pickering



# Z zqSUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

( II I q-.1

### cc: Hon. Jacqueline M. Bluth, District Judge Brian Kerry O'Keefe Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA al, UP-17A 2
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 419 -CR

Br e nda E lai ne King , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

FR OM T HE C OU N T Y C OU R T A T L A W N O. 5 OF T R A V IS C OU N T Y NO. 6878 29 , HO NORAB LE NANCY WRI GHT H OH ENGARTEN , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO PI N I O N
B r e n d a E la in e K in ga

p p e a ls p r o s e h e r

mi s d e me an o r

c o nv ic ti o nf

o r r e s is ting
arr est. SeeTe x. Pe na l Co de Ann. § 3 8. 03 (We st 2 00 3) . Ch a lle ng ingthejur y ’s fi nd ingof

guil t, appellant c omplains that the evidenc e showe d that she did not resist arr est and t h at s h e wa s wrong fully

convicted. Appellant did not reque st a repor ter’s r ecord or file a

n af fidavit of indig ence . See Te x. R. A pp . P. 35 .3 (b ); In re Spiege l , 6 S.W .3d 643, 646 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet.); see als o H all ibu rto n v . S

tate , 2006 Tex. App. L EXI S 2644, at *3-4 (Tex. App.—Tyler Mar . 31, 2006,
no pe t.) (n ot d e signate d f or pu bli c atio n) . A ft e r a

pp e lla nt w a s g ive n n oti c e and an op po rtun ity to
cure , the appe al was submitted for de cision withou t a re p o rt er’ s rec ord. SeeTe x. R. A pp . P. 37.3(c) (1).2 Whe n a repo rt e r’ s r e c or d is ne c e ssa ry fo r a pp e llate re vie w a

nd thea pp e lla nt f a ils to file th e re p o rt er ’s record, a presumption arises tha

t the repor

ter’s r ecord would support the trial court’ s judgme nt. R i t t enhouse v . Sabine Valley Ctr. Found. , 161 S.W .3d 157, 165 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

2005, no pet.). More over, if a n appellant does not init iate the c ompletion of a r ecor d and her

issue involves matters omitted from the re cord due to he r failure to reque st or pay for the r ecor d, her a ctions will prevent an a ppellat e co u rt from ade quately addre ssing the dispute. In this case, a

ppellant did not reque st a reporter ’s re cord nor did she file an a ffidavit of indig ence . Without the repor

ter’s r ecor d, we c annot deter mine that the trial cour

t erre d. Ac c or din g ly , w e ov e r

r u l ea p p e l l ant’ s is su e s and

a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt .

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, Justice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: June 12, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Exhibit 4.3
​

​
​
HÖEGH LNG PARTNERS LP
AMENDED AND RESTATED NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLAN
FOR THE PERIOD 2020-2021
(As approved by the Board on June 4, 2019, amended April 24, 2020 and September 11, 2020)
The non-employee members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Höegh LNG Partners LP (the “Partnership”) will be entitled to receive the following compensation:
1.     Retainer Fees
		●	Each non-employee director will receive an annual cash retainer fee of USD 40,600 (subject to adjustment from time to time, as determined by the Board) for each year of service as a director.

		●	The Chairman of the Board of Directors will receive an annual cash retainer fee of USD 21,900 (subject to adjustment from time to time, as determined by the Board) for each year of service in such capacity.

		●	The Chairs of the Audit and Conflict Committees will each receive an annual cash retainer fee of USD 21,900 (subject to adjustment from time to time, as determined by the Board) for each year of service in such capacity.

		●	Other committee members will receive an annual cash retainer fee of USD 11,000 (subject to adjustment from time to time, as determined by the Board) for each year of service in such capacity.


2.     Equity Awards
		●	Each non-employee director will receive an annual equity-based award (with award type, vesting and all other terms and conditions to be determined by the Board for any given year), valued at USD 40,600 (subject to adjustment from time to time, as determined by the Board) on the applicable date of grant, for each year of service as a director, which such award will be granted under the Höegh LNG Partners LP Long Term Incentive Plan, as amended from time to time (the “Plan”), or a successor plan, program or arrangement. Subject to approval by the Board, the Partnership may elect to pay cash (or a combination of equity and cash) in lieu of the equity-based award described in this Section 2 to any one or more directors.


3.     Expense Reimbursement
		●	Each non-employee director will be reimbursed for travel and miscellaneous expenses to attend meetings and activities of the Board or its committees and related to the director’s participation in the Partnership’s general education and orientation programs for directors.
#### DENNIS CHAMPS v. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LONG BRANCH AND STEPHEN S. GIDDIO.

April 10, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texa s

February 1, 2023

No. 04

- 22

- 00597

- CR

EX PARTE Valentin HERNANDEZ CORDOVA

From the County Court

, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10538CR

Honorable Tully Shahan , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On January 24, 2023, appellant filed an unopposed motion requesting an extension of

tim e to file appellant’s reply brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due no

later than March 1, 2023. Further requests for extension of time will be disfavored.

It is so ORDERED February 1 , 202 3

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
# German-American Day, 2014

America is and always has been a Nation of immigrants, and from our earliest days, German Americans have contributed to our national identity. Germans were among the first settlers in the original 13 Colonies, bringing their talents and ideas across the ocean to a new and unfamiliar world. And today, with their descendants and all who followed in their path, we continue to perfect our Union together. On German-American Day, we recognize their distinctive identity and the ways they enrich our country.

German Americans helped build our Nation, and every day they contribute to its growth. As they teach in our schools, farm in our heartland, and serve in our Armed Forces, their German roots offer a sense of their place in the American story. From a land of poets and thinkers, they brought passion for music, science, and art, fortifying our culture and broadening our understanding of the world. Our greatest cities and our biggest advances reflect their daring spirit and diverse contributions.

As we consider our German-American history, we are also reminded that the United States and Germany are vital partners. With the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall approaching, our security and prosperity remain interwoven, and our friendship continues as we work together in pursuit of a more peaceful, stable world. On this occasion, may citizens from both sides of the Atlantic draw strength from the legacy of our Nation's earliest immigrants who boldly pushed forward in unforgiving times. May our shared past continue to inspire us as we face new challenges in our own time.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 6, 2014, as German-American Day. I encourage all Americans to learn more about the history of German Americans and reflect on the many contributions they have made to our Nation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand fourteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-ninth.

[FR Doc. 2014-24216

Billing code 3295-F5
Exhibit
        15
  **ACCOUNTANT’S
        ACKNOWLEDGMENT**
  We
        acknowledge the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        on
        Form S-3 (filed in October 2000 and March 2001) and Form S-8 (filed in November
        1997) of Penn Octane Corporation of our report dated July 31, 2006 which
        appears
        on page 3 of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
        30,
        2006.
   /s/
                  BURTON MCCUMBER & CORTEZ,
                  L.L.P.
   Brownsville,
        Texas
 August
        14, 2006
“The successful orbiting of Explorer I in 1958

is one of the landmarks in the technical and scientific history

of the human race. Its instrumentation revealed the existence

of radiation belts of the Earth and opened up a massive new field

of scientific exploration in space. It inspired an entire generation

of young men and women in the United States to higher achievement

and propelled the Western world into the space age.” 

— James A. Van Allen 

EXPLORER 1
National Aeronautics and

Space AdministrationEXPLORER 1Explorer 1 was the first U.S. satellite in space and the first satellite to carry science instruments. Launched on a Jupiter-C rocket from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on Jan. 31, 1958 by the U.S. Army Ballistic Missile Agency under the direction of Wernher von Braun, the satellite was designed and built by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in less than three months.The satellite carried a micrometeorite detector, temperature sensors and a cosmic ray experiment designed by James A. Van Allen of the University of Iowa. Revealing a much lower cosmic ray count than expected, Van Allen theorized that the instrument may have been saturated by very strong radiation from a belt of charged particles trapped in space by Earth’s magnetic field. The existence of these radiation belts was confirmed by the launch of Explorer 3 two months later, and they became known as the Van Allen belts in honor of their discoverer.Explorer 1 ushered in a new understanding of our planet’s interconnected systems through space-based observations and inspired decades of achievement in Earth and space science.William Pickering, James A. Van Allen and Wernher von Braun (left to right) hold up a model of the Explorer 1 satellite at a press conference announcing its successful orbit.

www.nasa.gov
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Beth Ridgeway","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/angela-b-ridgewaynasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Opens Second Phase of $5 Million Lunar Power Prize Competition","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"QPnGJzQ1pl\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/marshall\/nasa-opens-second-phase-of-5-million-lunar-power-prize-competition\/\">NASA Opens Second Phase of $5 Million Lunar Power Prize Competition<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/marshall\/nasa-opens-second-phase-of-5-million-lunar-power-prize-competition\/embed\/#?secret=QPnGJzQ1pl\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Opens Second Phase of $5 Million Lunar Power Prize Competition” — NASA\" data-secret=\"QPnGJzQ1pl\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"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\/2022\/02\/watts_on_the_moon_thumbnail_0.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### 2001 Commerce Street Corp., Appellant, v Star Enterprise et al., Respondents.

[788 NYS2d 149]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a lease, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered June 19, 2003, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover damages for breach of the lease.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff entered into a lease whereby the defendant Star Enterprise agreed to raze and rebuild a gasoline station on the plaintiffs property. The rider to the lease agreement stated that the tenant would construct a gasoline station and food mart in accordance with a site plan dated September 23, 1994. The plaintiff commenced this action against Star Enterprise and its assignees, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants breached the lease by failing to construct a service building on the plaintiffs property as required under the lease.

The provisions of the lease are clear and unambiguous *(see Association for Children With Down Syndrome v County of Suffolk,*262 AD2d 340 [1999]; *Automotive Mgt. Group v SRB Mgt. Co.,*239 AD2d 450 [1997]). Under the terms of the lease, the defendants were required to construct a gasoline station and food mart in accordance with the site plan dated September 23, 1994. Since this site plan did not depict a service building, the defendants were not required to build one.

*505The plaintiffs contention that parol and extrinsic evidence are admissible for the purpose of establishing the existence of a mutual mistake is without merit. The plaintiffs submissions, even when viewed in the light most favorable to it, failed to establish a mutual mistake which would support a claim to reform or rescind the lease. At best, the plaintiffs negligence, or “ [conscious ignorance,” regarding the contents of the site plan *(P.K. Dev. v Elvem Dev. Corp.,*226 AD2d 200, 201 [1996]), established a unilateral mistake on its part *(see New York First Ave. CVS v Wellington Tower Assoc.,*299 AD2d 205, 206 [2002]).

If the plaintiff intended for the defendants to build a service building, it could have clearly stated so in the lease *(see Automotive Mgt. Group v SRB Mgt. Co., supra).*“[T]he general merger clause precludes plaintiff from arguing that the executed lease does not contain the full agreement of the parties” *(New York First Ave. CVS v Wellington Tower Assoc., supra*at 206). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.