alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

June 28, 2022 

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics 

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Space Policy 

Institute, George Washington University Dinner on July 6, 2022 

On July 6, 2022, the Space Policy Institute (SPI), George Washington University (GWU), a 

nonprofit organization under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host a dinner at the 

DACOR Bacon House in Washington, DC, starting at 6:30 p.m. The guest speaker is General 

John W. “Jay” Raymond, Chief, Space Operations, United States Space Force. 

Approximately 100 people have been invited to attend. Attendees will have a diversity of 

views or interests and will include representatives from the legislative branch, state and local 

government officials, representatives from industry, employees of Federal agencies, 

academia, media and members of the public. The estimated cost of the event, including all 

food and beverages, is $96 per person. SPI is in control of the organizing, planning and 

invitations for this event. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to exchange 

information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the requirements 

of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2). 

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and 

views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees, including 

NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under 

Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests 

of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In those 

circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the 

individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their 

duties. 

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the 

interests of the SPI/GWU, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating 

or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination from their 

local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation. Attendees are reminded 

to exercise any COVID-19 precautions appropriate to their individual situation. 

Adam F. Greenstone
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13

                               AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
                              INCENTIVE STOCK PLAN



         The Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Incentive Stock Plan, as amended
from time to time, (the "Plan") is hereby amended by this Amendment No. 2 as
follows, effective as of May 19, 1999.

         Section 2.09 of the Plan is amended and restated as follows:

                           "2.09 Identified Employee means an Eligible Employee
               (a) who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation or an
               elected vice president of the Corporation, in each case unless
               the Committee, in its sole discretion, determines not to
               designate such officer as an Identified Employee, or (b) who is
               otherwise designated by the Committee as an Identified Employee
               for any Plan Year."

         All other terms and provisions of the Plan remain in full force and
effect.
Dial-In (audio) & WebEx (view presentations online) information is located on page 2.

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group

First Meeting

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

9:00 am – 2:00 pm

NASA Headquarters

Executive Conference Center, Room 8Q40B

300 E Street, SW

Washington, DC 20546

PUBLIC AGENDA

9:00 am Call to Order, Announcements Mr. Brandon Eden

Executive Secretary

Users’ Advisory Group

9:03 am Opening Remarks by Chair, Admiral James Ellis (USN, Ret.)

Users’ Advisory Group (UAG) Chair

Users’ Advisory Group

9:10 am Opening Remarks by Executive Secretary, Dr. Scott Pace

National Space Council Executive Secretary 

National Space Council

9:20 am Candidate Topics for UAG Review Dr. Scott Pace

Executive Secretary

National Space Council

10:00 am Deregulation and Space Traffic Management Mr. James Uthmeier

Initiatives Mr. Earl Comstock

Department of Commerce

10:45 am Space Exploration Priorities; ISS Transition Mr. James Bridenstine

and Lunar Exploration Roadmap NASA Administrator

11:30 am Lunch

12:30 pm Formation of Work Plan and UAG All

Subcommittees

1:30 pm Public Input

1:40 pm Roundtable Discussion and Final Wrap-Up All

2:00 pm Adjournment
UAG Public Meeting – Dial-In and WebEx Information

Dial-In (audio): Dial the toll free number 1-888-469-2059, or toll number 1-517-308-9154, passcode: 

7145407, followed by the # sign. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting.

Note: Please mute your phone.

WebEx (view presentations online): To join via WebEx, the link is https://nasa.webex.com/.

The meeting number is: 995 394 422; the password is: JMgpT9A? (case sensitive)

All Meeting Times are Eastern Time
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Sean O'Keefe, Administrator 

Frederick D. Gregory, Deputy Administrator 

John D. Schumacher, Chief ofstaff 

James L. Jennings, Associate Deputy Administrator for Institutions and Asset Managemen 

Advisory Panel 

4 

NASA Advisory 

~ .......... * ................................ i Inspector General (W) i............. 

i Robert W. Cobb i 

Chief Financial Equal Opportunity 

Human Resources (F) 

Gwendolyn Brown Dorothy Hayden-Watkin VickiA Novak 

-- 

General Counsel (G) Procurement (H) 

Paul G. Pastorek Thomas S. Luedtke 

Small and Disadvantaged 

External Relations (I) Business Utilization (K) 

Michael F. O'Brien Jeffrey E. Sutton Ralph C. Thomas I11 

Legislative Affairs (L) 

D. Lee Forsgren 

Assistant Administrator 

HQ Operations (C) 

James J. Frelk Director 

Public Affairs (P) and Safeguards (X) 

Glenn Mahone David A.Saleeba 

I 

Education gU) Assurance (Q) 

Adena Williams Loston Bryan D O'Connor 

Space Flight (M) 

William F Readdy 

- Lyndon B Johnson Space 

Center 

Jetferson D Howell, JI 

Space Center 

James W Kennedy 

George C Marshall 

Space Flight Center 

David A King 

John C Stennis 

Space Center 

Thomas Q Donaldson V 

* John F Kennedy 

I I 

4 

Biological and Physical 'EF I I Space : Science (S) I I Research(U) 

Mary E. Kicza J. Victor Lebacqz Edward J. Weiler 

ociate Administrator Associate Administrator Associate Administrator 

* Ames Research Center Jet Propulsion 

G. Scott Hubbard i Laboratory* 

. Dryden Flight i Charles Elachi 

Research Center 

Kevin Petersen 

- Langley Research 

Center 

Roy D. Bridges 

* John H. Glenn 

Research Center at 

Lewis Field 

Julian M. Earls * JPL is a contractor-operated facility. 

Earth Science cy) 

Ghassem R. Asrar 

Associate Administrator 

Goddarrl Space 

Flight Center 

Alphonso V. Diaz 

January 5,2004 

(Amended January 7,2004)
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

S TATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

IS IAH ROMONT HILL , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA-CR 17-0344 PRPC

A ppeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2006-009614-001 The Honorable Jose S. Padilla , Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENI ED

C OUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

I siah Romont Hill, Florence Petitioner FILED 5-10-2018STATE v. HILL Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

P E R C U R I U M : ¶1 Petitioner Isiah Romont Hill seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petitions for post

- conv iction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. These are petitioner’s eighth, ninth, and tenth successive petitions. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 576 -77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the petition. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011 ). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not shown an abuse of discretion. ¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
#### Wallace and Another *v.*Clark.

Thursday, *December*5.

To debt oil a replevin-bond, a plea that the goods replevied belong to the principal obligor is bad.

But on the execution of a writ of inquiry, after judgment in such suit for the plaintiff on demurrer, evidence of such ownership is admissible in mitigation of damages.

ERROR to the *Vigo*Circuit Court. Damages were assessed and judgment was rendered, in the Circuit Court, in favour of *Clark,*the plaintiff

Sullivan, J.

— Debt on a replevin-bond by *Clark*against the plaintiffs in error. The condition of the bond is, that if *Joseph S. Wallace,*one of the plaintiffs in error, shall prosecute with effect and without delay a certain writ of replevin, sued out by him against *Clark,*and duly return the goods and chattels taken by the sheriff, &c., by virtue of said writ, if a return shall be awarded, then said bond shall be void, &c. The breaches assigned are, that *Wallace*wholly failed to prosecute his suit with effect, &c., but, on the contrary thereof, became and was nonsuit; and that *Wallace*has failed to return said goods and chattels, as by the judgment of the Court he was ordered to do. Plea, that the goods and chattels, named in the condition of the bond, were the property of *Joseph ¡S. Wallace.*To this plea, there was a general demurrer, which was correctly sustained by the Court. *Sherry*v. *Foresman,*6 Blackf. 56. On the execution of the writ of inquiry, the defendants in the Court below offered to prove, in mitigation of damages, that the property mentioned in the condition of the bond was the property of *Joseph S. Wallace,*and that *Clark*never had a title to it. The plaintiff objected, and the Court excluded the testimony.

The question before us is attended with some difficulty. *299Our conclusion however is, that the Court erred in rejecting the testimony. The determination of a replevin-suit may or may not be conclusive of the right of property, according to the circumstances of the case. When the right of property is put in issue and decided on, it is then *res adjudicate*and cannot, on general principles, be again inquired into in a suit between the same parties. If, however,. the right has not been tried, it remains, as a matter of course, an open. question. The amount of damages in an action on a replevinbond, must depend very materially on the right of the plaintiff to possess and retain the property. If the property belonged to him, his damages would be according to its value. But if he had no right whatever to the property, he sustained no damage by the refusal of the obligor to return it. There is therefore a propriety, when the amount of damages is the question, in allowing the defendant tp show that the plaintiff had no claim to the property.

*W. JD. Griswold*and *J. P. Ushei\*for the plaintiffs.

*A. Kinney*and *8. B.*Gookins, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. _^Cause remanded, &c.
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                          PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying annual report on Form 10-KSB of Championlyte
Holdings, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2003, David Goldberg, Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Championlyte Holdings, Inc.
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:

1. Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003,
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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period
ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Championlyte Holdings, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Championlyte Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


CHAMPIONLYTE HOLDINGS, INC.

Dated: March 30, 2004

By: David Goldberg
    --------------------
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
#### Casa Redimix Concrete Corp. et al., Respondents, v MacQuesten General Contracting, Inc., et al., Defendants, and HCE, Inc., Appellant.

[788 NYS2d 619]

*642In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and for an account stated, the defendant HCE, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Risi, J.), dated October 10, 2003, as, after a nonjury trial and upon an undated decision of the same court, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it.

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

The plaintiffs were entitled to recover the principal sum of $22,789.78 as established by the invoices received in evidence. The appellant’s retention of the invoices without making a timely objection gave rise to an enforceable account stated *(see*UCC 2-201 [2]; *Bay Ridge Lbr. Co. v Summit Renovation Corp.,*271 AD2d 559 [2000]; *Peterson v Schroder Bank & Trust Co.,*172 AD2d 165 [1991]). Moreover, the unsigned contract and delivery tickets became enforceable upon the appellant’s retention of the goods delivered without timely objection *(see*UCC 2-204 [1]; 2-207 [3]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.8


 


CHARDAN NEXTECH ACQUISITION 2 CORP.

17 State Street, Suite 2100


New York, NY 10004


[●], 2021


 


CHARDAN NEXTECH INVESTMENTS 2 LLC

17 State Street, Suite 2100


New York, NY 10004


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter will confirm our
agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement (the “Registration
Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”) of the securities of Chardan NexTech Acquisition
2 Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial
business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date
hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”), Chardan NexTech Investments 2 LLC (“Sponsor”)
shall make available to the Company certain office space, secretarial and administrative services as may be required by the Company from
time to time, situated at 17 State Street, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10004 (or any
successor location). In exchange therefore, the Company shall pay Sponsor a sum not to exceed $10,000 per month, respectively, on the
Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date. Sponsor hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title,
interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”)
that may be established by the Company for the benefit of the Company’s public stockholders upon the consummation of the IPO as
described in the Registration Statement (“Claim”), and hereby waives any Claim it may have in the future as
a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the Company, and will not seek recourse against the Trust
Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


	 	 	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	CHARDAN NEXTECH ACQUISITION 2 CORP.
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	 
	 	 	 	Name: 	Jonas Grossman
	 	 	 	Title: 	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 
	
    AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	CHARDAN NEXTECH INVESTMENTS 2 LLC	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	 	 
	Name: 	Jonas Grossman	 	 
	Title: 	Managing Member
#### STATE IN THE INTEREST OF C.B.

June 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### CHAPEL HILL CINEMAS, INC., a North Carolina Corporation v. CECIL W. ROBBINS and FAYE ELOISE ROBBINS

No. 337A01

(Filed 9 November 2001)

Landlord and Tenant— breach of lease—increased rental costs—mitigation of damages—jury question

The decision of the Court of Appeals in this action by plaintiff lessee to recover damages for defendant lessor’s breach of a notification of sale and right of first refusal provision of a lease is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of plaintiff for $159,600 in damages for increased rental costs because the jury was entitled to determine whether plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence to mitigate its damages for increased rental payments, and that this issue was properly preserved for appellate review.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 143 N.C. App. 571, 547 S.E.2d 462 (2001), finding no error in part and ordering a new trial in part of an order granting directed verdict and a judgment entered 26 July 1999 by Mills, J., in Superior Court, Orange County. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 October 2001.

*Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Reid L. Phillips and Jennifer T. Harrod, for plaintiff-appellees.*

*Eisele, Ashbum, Greene & Chapman, P.A., by Douglas G. Eisele; and Levine & Stewart, by John T. Stewart, for defendant-appellants.*

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge Tyson.

REVERSED.
Oyster Creek Group, Inc.
(A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS

                                     For the years ended        August 19, 1999
                                     June 30,                    (Inception) to
                                     2004              2003       June 30, 2004
CASH FLOWS
FROM
OPERATING
ACTIVITIES
Net (loss)                   $(1,005)             $(460)     $(10,790)
Increase in
accounts
payable                        1,005                 460          8,215

Net cash
(used) by
operating
activities                          -                        -         (2,575)

CASH FLOWS
FROM
FINANCING
ACTIVITIES
Proceeds from
stock issuances              -                        -            2,575

Net cash
provided by
financing
activities                         -                       -             2,575

Net increase
in cash                                                                    -
Cash   beginning                                                      -
Cash   ending                                                          -

Supplemental
disclosures:
Interest paid              -                                  -               -
Income taxes
paid                          -                                 -             -

Non-cash
transactions:
Shares issued
for dividend                -                                 -          $2,000

Number of
shares issued            -                                -         2,000,000
for dividend

The accompanying notes are an intregal part of these financial statements.
Page 1
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 Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - RIN 0648-XD528

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of cancellation of a public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The New England Fishery Management Council has cancelled the public meeting of its Observer Policy Committee that was scheduled for Thursday, October 23, 2014 has been cancelled.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The initial notice published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 8, 2014 (79 FR 60810).                

Dated: October 8, 2014.

Tracey L. Thompson,

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 2014-24431 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P