alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Tahira S. Allen","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/tsallen2\/","title":"Senior Communications Specialist Alana Johnson","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"gorhOUrmRX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/alana-johnson-portrait\/\">Senior Communications Specialist Alana Johnson<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/alana-johnson-portrait\/embed\/#?secret=gorhOUrmRX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Senior Communications Specialist Alana Johnson” — NASA\" data-secret=\"gorhOUrmRX\" 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\/03\/nhq202402070011.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":374}
#### Daniel H. Bogy *v.*Kirksville Turnpike Road Company.

Corporations — Subscription to Stock in Turnpike Company.

A subscription to the capital stock in a turnpike company, in writing, is a binding obligation and enforcible according to the terms of same.

Same — Promise to Pay Amount Subscribed — Demand.

A promise to pay a subscription to stock in a corporation, at such times as called upon thereafter, is in effect a promise to pay on demand, and no precedent act is necessary on the part of the payee holding such an undertaking, to entitle him to his action.

APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 16, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

The subscription of stock by appellant to the turnpike road was in writing, without any condition annexed thereto, and no fraud is alleged in the procurement thereof, and he-was consequently bound to pay the same according to the terms of his subscription. *Lackey vs. Richmond and Lancaster Turnpike Road Company, 17 B. Mon. 43.*

It is alleged in the petition that appellant promised to pay the amount subscribed by him to the capital stock of said company at such times as he might thereafter be called on to pay the same. That is in effect a promise to pay on demand, and no precedent' act is necessary on the part of the payee holding such an undertaking to entitle him to his action. The promise of appellant is to pay a certain amount of money, and according to the well settled *166doctrine of the law, the commencement of an action is a sufficient demand. *Cotton vs. Reaville et al, 2 Bibb, 101; Leathers’ Reprs. vs. McGlasson, 3 Mon.,*224.

*Turner, for appellant.*

*Burnam, for appellee.*

The cases of *Worley vs. Mourning, 1 Bibb, 254,*and *Stafford, etc., vs. Trimble, Ib., 323,*referred to by appellant’s counsel as sustaining a different doctrine, have long since been over-ruled. See *Griggs vs. Bondurant, 3 Mon., 178,*and cases there cited.

It appears from the evidence that in locating the turnpike road, the company departed somewhat from the old road and constructed it on a part of appellant’s land, for which he now asserts a claim for damages, even if his failure to obtain an inquest of damages, when the turnpike road was being located, did not amount to a waiver of any claim thereto, and by postponing the assertion of such a claim, secure the making of the road to suit him when the company might not have built it on that ground if he had previously claimed damages. Still, by the judgment of the court below, he was allowed a credit on his subscription of $50, which fully compensated him for all the land occupied by the road, according to the evidence. And the advantage derived from the road more than compensated him for any collateral damages, such as the injury to his ice-house, removal of fencing, etc., he may have sustained.

Interest was allowed on the sum adjudged against appellant only from the commencement of the action. In the whole case no error is perceived prejudicial to appellant, and the judgment must be *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                             1,000
<CURRENCY>                               U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                     DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       NOV-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                              1
<CASH>                                      94
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                            1,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                12
<INVENTORY>                              1,492
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         3,880
<PP&E>                                     410
<DEPRECIATION>                             275
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           4,431
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       71
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  1
<COMMON>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                               4,359
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             4,431
<SALES>                                  7,305
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         7,305
<CGS>                                    4,627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (1,486)
<INCOME-TAX>                               199
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (1,685)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                            (1,685)
<EPS-BASIC>                              (1.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (1.26)



</TABLE>
#### Dwight T. SPRINGFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HEILIG-MEYERS FURNITURE COMPANY; Ricky Slaughter, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-60379.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided March 14, 2005.

Dwight T. Springfield, Greenville, MS, pro se.

*157Paul Scott Phillips, Charles Speakes Hewins, Campbell, Delong, Hagwood & Wade, Fritzie Toney Youngman, Henderson Dantone, Greenville, MS, Ronald Lee Whittington, McComb, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-appellant Springfield appeals from the district court’s decision granting summary judgment on his Title VII, intentional torts, negligence and wrongful termination claims. For essentially the reasons stated in the district court’s order, we AFFIRM.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Dede Dinius","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/darin-l-diniusnasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Collaborates in an International Air Quality Study","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"YMAochBj5s\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasa-collaborates-in-an-international-air-quality-study\/\">NASA Collaborates in an International Air Quality Study<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasa-collaborates-in-an-international-air-quality-study\/embed\/#?secret=YMAochBj5s\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Collaborates in an International Air Quality Study” — NASA\" data-secret=\"YMAochBj5s\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/AFRC2024-0010-66\/AFRC2024-0010-66~large.jpg?w=600&h=1280&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1280}
Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of eMagin Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul Campbell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                        |   |                                                              |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: August 13, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Paul Campbell                                            |   |
|                        |   | Paul Campbell                                                     |   |
|                        |   | Chief Financial Officer        |   |
|                        |   |                                                              |   |
##### 



Exhibit 10.29
 FIRST INDUSTRIAL REALTY TRUST, INC.  2001 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN  FORM OF RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
    Grant
 Vesting
 (i)
    
    so long as the Grantee is employed with the Company:
 (A)
    
    one-third of the Award Shares shall
vest on January 1, 200_;(B)
    
    an additional one-third of the Award
Shares shall vest on January 1, 200_;(C)
    
    the remaining one-third of the Award
Shares shall vest on January 1, 20___;
 (ii)
    
    in the event of a Change in Control of the Company, as defined
under the Plan;(iii)
    
    on the January 1 of the year following the year in which the
Grantee voluntarily terminates service with the Company, as long as the total
funds from operations (FFO) or FFO per share of the Company for such year of
termination equals or exceeds ___% of the FFO or FFO per share for the calendar
year immediately preceding the Date of Grant calendar year;(iv)
    
    in the event of the involuntary termination of the service of
the Grantee for any reason, including, but not limited to, for Cause, as
defined under the Plan; or(v)
    
    the Committee so directs.




---



##### 



Share Delivery provided provided, further
 Rights of Stockholder
 Recapitalizations, Dividends and Adjustments
 Nontransferability
 Withholding
 References
 Notice
 If to the Company:
    
    First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4000Chicago, Illinois 60606Attn: Chief Financial Officer
 2




---



##### 



If to the Grantee:
 Counterparts
 Governing Law
  FIRST INDUSTRIAL REALTY TRUST, INC.By:Michael J. HavalaChief Financial Officer  GRANTEEDate:
 3
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 Quarterly Report of eMagin Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew G. Sculley, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  350 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 results of operations of the Company.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated: May 12, 2011
By:
/s/ Andrew G. SculleyAndrew G. SculleyChief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

s0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138198 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138198 

 COA: 287449 

Wayne CC: 81-006929 

WILLIAM KEITH JENKINS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 12, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
**Exhibit 10.46**
**DIRECTOR COMPENSATION**
     Directors not employed by Seabulk International, Inc. (the “Company”) are paid an annualretainer of $24,000 plus $1,500 per Board meeting and $1,000 per Committee meeting ($750 and $500,respectively, if telephonic) attended. They are reimbursed by the Company for reasonableout-of-pocket expenses incurred for attendance at such meetings in accordance with Company policy.All non-employee Committee chairmen are also paid an annual retainer of $5,000.
     Under the Stock Option Plan for Directors, each non-employee director is granted annual stockoptions exercisable for 4,000 shares on every Annual Meeting date. The Chairman of the Board ofDirectors, if a non-employee, is entitled to receive annual stock options for 8,000 shares. In2004, each non-employee director was granted options to purchase 4,000 shares. In his initialyear, a director is granted options to purchase 10,000 shares on the date of the Annual Meeting.All director options vest on the anniversary of each grant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,756,235
<SECURITIES>                                39,804,349
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            76,479,086
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              76,479,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,084,129
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                76,479,086
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,407,942
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            22,108,539
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,700,597)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,700,597)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,700,597)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (566.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (566.93)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4764 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4764

  To require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization 
made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where 
   the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects 
                          interstate commerce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 9, 1998

 Mr. Aderholt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization 
made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where 
   the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects 
                          interstate commerce.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL COURTS.

    Each Federal court shall recognize any notarization made by a 
notary public licensed under the laws of a State other than the State 
where the Federal court is located when such notarization occurs in or 
affects interstate commerce.

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN STATE COURTS.

    Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a State shall 
recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed under the 
laws of a State other than the State where the court is located when 
such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Jonathan D. Klein, Chief Executive Officer, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Getty Images, Inc.; 

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.