alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"NIAC 2024 Selections","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"px7CSxpmwE\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/niac-2024-selections\/\">NIAC 2024 Selections<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/niac-2024-selections\/embed\/#?secret=px7CSxpmwE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NIAC 2024 Selections” — NASA\" data-secret=\"px7CSxpmwE\" 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\/2024\/01\/2024-niac-ph-i-selections-web-graphic-banner-k.reilly-final.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":185}
exv10w5



 


Exhibit 10.5





TERM NOTE





	$               	               ,  
     






     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, VERIDIAN CORPORATION, a corporation
organized under the laws of the state of Delaware (the
“Borrower”), hereby
promises to pay to the order of
               ,
(the “Lender”), at the place and times
provided in the Credit Agreement referred to below, the principal sum
of
               
DOLLARS
($          ) or, if less, the unpaid principal amount of all Term Loans made to
the Borrower by the Lender pursuant to that certain Credit Agreement, dated as
of June 10, 2002 (as amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified, the
“Credit Agreement”) by and among the Borrower, the lenders who are or may
become a party thereto (collectively, the “Lenders”) and Wachovia Bank,
National Association, as Administrative Agent. Capitalized terms used herein
and not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Credit
Agreement.


     The unpaid principal amount of this Term Note from time to time
outstanding is subject to mandatory repayment from time to time as provided in
the Credit Agreement and shall bear interest as provided in Section 5.1 of the
Credit Agreement. All payments of principal and interest on this Term Note
shall be payable in lawful currency of the United States of America in
immediately available funds to the account designated in the Credit Agreement.


     This Term Note is entitled to the benefits of, and evidences Obligations
incurred under, the Credit Agreement, to which reference is made for a
description of the security for this Term Note and for a statement of the terms
and conditions on which the Borrower is permitted and required to make
prepayments and repayments of principal of the Obligations evidenced by this
Term Note and on which such Obligations may be declared to be immediately due
and payable.


     THIS TERM NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO
THE CONFLICTS OR CHOICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES THEREOF.


     The Debt evidenced by this Term Note is senior in right of payment to all
Subordinated Debt referred to in the Credit Agreement.


     The Borrower hereby waives all requirements as to diligence, presentment,
demand of payment, protest and (except as required by the Credit Agreement)
notice of any kind with respect to this Term Note.








 


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower has caused this Term Note to be executed
under seal by a duly authorized officer as of the day and year first above
written.




	 	VERIDIAN CORPORATION

	[CORPORATE SEAL]	





	 	By:                                              

     Name:
                                  

     Title:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"X-15: Extending the Frontiers of Flight","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Ju3TfyViJ0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/x-15-extending-the-frontiers-of-flight\/\">X-15: Extending the Frontiers of Flight<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/x-15-extending-the-frontiers-of-flight\/embed\/#?secret=Ju3TfyViJ0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“X-15: Extending the Frontiers of Flight” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Ju3TfyViJ0\" 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\/2015\/02\/126017main_image_feature_394_ys_full.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":469}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               97,635
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               716
<OTHER-SE>                                        (118,351)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             0
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    75,191
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,826
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     12,342
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (77,017)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     89,359
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        12,342
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.00


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTONIO CELIZ.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of The Newark Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Joseph E. Byrne, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financialcondition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented. 

Dated:December 12, 2008 

 

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure statement. 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DEBRA KAUFMAN.

June 13, 1989.

Petition for certification granted, and the judgment of the Appellate Division is summarily reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence in light of *State v. Baylass,*114 *N.J.*169 (1989) and *State v. Molina,*114 *N.J.*181 (1989).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vanessa Alexandre,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03616-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Jackson Allen & Williams, LLP

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/11/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

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

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

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) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8347 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8347 Filed 10/23/17 Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Paul A.
Berberian, the Chief Executive Officer of Raindance Communications, Inc. (the
Company), and Nicholas J. Cuccaro, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2002, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the
Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company
for the periods covered by the Periodic Report.

|                                                               |  |                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2002                                       |  |                                                                   
|                                                              
|/s/ Paul A. BerberianPaul A. Berberian
Chief Executive Officer |  | /s/ Nicholas J. CuccaroNicholas J. Cuccaro
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT32.2

| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |   |                                                                  |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: May      14, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Paul      Campbell                                           |   |
|                          |   | Paul      Campbell                                                    |   |
|                          |   | Chief      FinancialOfficer        |   |
|                          |   |                                                                  |   |
#### Hannah E. Cook v. John H. Burnett.

*Appeal—Findings of court—Exceptions—Assignments of error.*

1. An exception to a conclusion of law is indispensable to its review in the Supreme Court. *McMillan v. Cheese Factory,*23 Mich. 544.

2. A finding of fact, if supported by *any*evidence, is conclusive, and a party failing to except to a finding of law is regarded as' acquiescing therein.

3. The judgment in this case is affirmed, it not being assigned as error that the facts found do not support the judgment.

Error to Cass. (O’Hara, J.)

Argued October 31, 1890.

Decided November 14, 1890.

*252Keplevin. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

The facts necessary to a decision of the case are stated in the opinion.

*O. W. Coolidge,*for appellant.

*Howell & Carr,*for defendant.

Champús-, C. J.

This cause was tried before the court without a jury, and the circuit judge made written findings of fact and his conclusions of law thereon. No exceptions were taken to either the findings of fact or of law. The case is brought here by bill of exceptions and writ of error.

The errors assigned relate exclusively to the findings of law, and to the court's refusal to find certain conclusions of law requested by plaintiff. In *McMillan v. Cheese Factory,*23 Mich. 544, there were written findings of fact and law, but no exception was taken to the findings of fact, nor to the conclusions of law embodied in them. Errors were assigned as to the law. This Court held as follows:

> ' “'There is no exception to the conclusion of law complained of. This is indispensable to a review of such conclusions by this Court.”

And in *Peabody v. McAvoy,*Id. 526, it was held that a finding of fact which is supported by any evidence is conclusive, and that a finding of law is not reviewable in this Court unless excepted to as required by our practice; and when a party fails to except to a specific finding, he is regarded as submitting to it.

There is no allegation of error in this case that the facts found do not.support the judgment. It follows *253that there is nothing in the record which we are authorized to consider upon a writ of error, and the judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF IKON CAPITAL, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                            1,895,037,000<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     100,644,000<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                              37,369,000<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,976,211,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                  1,567,250,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0<F3>
<OTHER-SE>                                 265,981,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,976,211,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           214,289,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            61,790,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          83,536,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             71,565,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                28,984,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         42,581,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                42,581,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F4>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F4>
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES NET INVESTMENTS IN LEASES OF $1,839,448,000 AND OTHER ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE.
<F2>INCLUDES LEASED EQUIPMENT OF: COST - $84,543,000; ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION -
$33,598,000
<F3>COMMON STOCK, $.01 PAR VALUE, 1,000 SHARES OUTSTANDING.  SINCE TOTAL IS LESS
THAN $1,000,ZERO IS REPORTED.
<F4>NOT REQUIRED AS THE REGISTRANT IS A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### In re: James BEASLEY, Petitioner.

No. 04-1847.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 10, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2005.

James Beasley, Petitioner pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

James Beasley has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court that would effectively reinstate the payment of supplemental security income to Beasley — a matter that has been fully litigated. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). “[CJourts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” *In re Ford Motor Co.,*751 F.2d 274, 275 (8th Cir.1984). In seeking mandamus relief, Beasley carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief sought and that his right to such relief is clear and indisputable. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). We find that Beasley has failed to meet this burden and thus we dismiss the petition. We deny Beasley’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DISMISSED*