alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Newport & Dayton T. P. Co. *v.*Conrad Hahn, etc.

Pleadings — Answer Made no Issue — Cross-Petition.

If no reply had been filed and a jury impaneled to inquire into the amount appellants were entitled to recover upon the counterclaim relied on, no evidence would have been admissible to show damage on account of the unscreened gravel, nor could a verdict have included liquidated damages as the answer and counter-claim did not raise the issue.

APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

January 12, 1872.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

Appellees, after setting out the terms of this contract with the turnpike company, alleg-e that they had built the company’s road from Tyler’s creek bridge to Dayton under the supervision and instruction of their engineer; that the work amounted to *141$6,924.62; that there had been paid to them $4,343, leaving due and unpaid a balance of $2,581.62, for which amount they -prayed judgment.

*Hallam, Carlisle, for appellant.*

*Baker, Hawkins, for appellee.*

Appellant denied that -the work had been done according to contract, or that it had been received as completed. They denied that the work amounted to a greater sum than $5,743. They denied -that the road was completed by the 1st of December, 1869, or that it was complete at the time that answer was filed.

They pointed out several defects as to fills, grading and drainage, and that portions of the road had been left without gravel. They claimed in general terms damages for $2,500.

Upon the trial no instructions touching the defenses -relied on in the answer were asked for, and under the evidence the jury did not -commit a palpable error in disregarding -them.

Appellants insist, however, that they should have been allowed a set-off in a large amount on. account of the appellee’s using unscreened gravel on. portions of the r-oad instead of screened gravel as prescribed by contract. Also that by the contract they were entitled to liquidated damages at the rate of five- dollars per day from the 1st of December, 1869, until the road was completed.

Neither of these alleged violations of appellee’s contract are set up and relied on or even referred to in appellant’s answer. If no reply had been filed it could not have been taken as confessed, in so far as these are concerned.

If no reply had1 been filed and a jury impaneled to inquire into the amount appellants were entitled to recover upon the counter-claim relied on, no evidence would have been admissible to show damages, on account of unscreened gravel having been used in a construction of the road, nor could a verdict have included these liquidated1 damages until the pleadings set out the number of days for which such damages were claimed. It is not necessary to determine whether or not the jury disregarded the instructions of the court.

Under the pleadings -the verdict was correct, and the circuit judge properly overruled the -motion for a new trial.

Judgment *affirmed.*
#### Lewis Cheek *v.*John McKay, etc.

Pleading — Amended Petition Presenting New Cause of Action — Service of Process.

Where a petition is so amended as to present a new cause of action there should be service of process, either actual or constructive, before judgment.

Judicial Sales — Not Made on First Day of Court — Void—Judicial Notice of Term.

Courts will take judicial notice of terms of court, and a sale of land made on other than the first day of a term is void.

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 23, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The amended petition filed in this case by the appellees was in fact a supplemental petition presenting a new cause of action, and there should have been service of process, either actual or constructive before judgment.

It also appears that the sale made by the sheriff of appellant’s equity of redemption in the real estate described in the pleadings was made on Saturday, the 5th of September, 1868, that *200this was not the first day of either the circuit or county courts of Kenton. The county court 'began on the fourth Monday in the month *(see Session Acts*1863-4, *page*447), of which fact this court will take judicial notice. Such sales are void as decided by this court in the case of *Will vs. Sweeney,*2 *Duvall, page*162. The case is reversed with directions to set aside the judgment of the court below and all the proceedings thereunder and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

*Rodman, for appellant.*

*Hallam, for appellees.*
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Pan Am Financial Corp (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Guillermo Bron certifies in his capacity as Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

(b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation ofthe Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto signed this Certification as of November 7, 2002.

|  
/s/ GUILLERMO BRON

 
 
 
 
**Guillermo Bron Chairman and Chief Executive Officer**

 
 
 
  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 285 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 285

      Requiring the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
 Representatives to meet the requirements applicable to the head of a 
 department or independent establishment under the Buy American Act in 
     acquiring articles, materials, and supplies for the House of 
                            Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 28, 1997

  Mr. Manton (for himself and Mr. Traficant) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Requiring the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
 Representatives to meet the requirements applicable to the head of a 
 department or independent establishment under the Buy American Act in 
     acquiring articles, materials, and supplies for the House of 
                            Representatives.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. REQUIRING CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO MEET REQUIREMENTS 
              OF BUY AMERICAN ACT IN PROCUREMENT FOR HOUSE OF 
              REPRESENTATIVES.

    (a) In General.--The Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
Representatives shall meet the requirements applicable to the head of a 
department or independent establishment under the Buy American Act in 
acquiring, and in contracting for the acquisition of, articles, 
materials, and supplies for the House of Representatives.
    (b) Buy American Act Defined.--In this section, the term ``Buy 
American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other purposes'', approved 
March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).

SEC. 2. REGULATIONS.

    The Committee on House Oversight shall have the authority to issue 
regulations to carry out this resolution.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This resolution shall take effect beginning with the second session 
of the One Hundred Fifth Congress.
                                 <all>
```
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308,CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS miL 

# STATE ©F TEXAS -/.fffM PENALTY FOR ;fV;'go PRIVATE USE 3/18/2015 Ortiz, Oscar Orlando 

### tr. Ct. O.U. 

## Nor*1Ii;§08,48/A 

## On this day, the supplemental clerk'srecord, in Response to the orderissuedby this Court, has been received and presented to.the^Court 02 1R 0006557458 MAR 25 2015 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 78 701 I ; 

### WR-8i'r,487-G1iJ.\



### osta, Clerk

".'.•3S.*>".'.-"Lv;;.-.•#.vy; :/»>«Ssjt'*^rj«ps*i *7~f** .t^-.v-.v,- *.**(*C*"-^'*ll-a.'V**'. del r;'Sa^
#### Adam Baum *v.*White *&*Hunt.

Pleadings — Answer Must Deny Every Material Allegation in Petition — I Plea in Avoidance.

To constitute a good answer every material allegation of the petition must be denied in such a manner, or if facts are pleaded in avoidance, they must be so stated as to show that if true the plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment. .

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

October 13, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

Appellant in his answer denies that the goods were sold and delivered to a firm composed of the persons sued as constituting that firm, and says that if they were sold at all they were sold to “The Cottage Furnace Iron and Manufacturing Company” claiming to be a corporation, but he does not allege in direct and positive terms that the Cottage Furnace Iron Manufacturing Company was a corporation — or that the goods were sold to a corporation which was responsible for the price thereof.

To constitute a good answer every material allegation of the petition must be denied in suc'h manner, or if facts are pleaded *194in avoidance, they must be so stated as to show that if true the plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment against the defendant. Tested by the rules the answer in this case is not sufficient. All that it contains may be true, and still appellant may be legally bound for .the debt appellees claim.

*W. H. Holt, for appellant.*

*Apperson, Reid, for appellees.*

The demurrer was, therefore, properly sustained to the answer. And the judgment must be *affirmed.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cr−00318

Honorable Robert W. Gettleman

Olalekan Jacob Ponle

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, December 8, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman as to Olalekan Jacob

Ponle: Telephonic status hearing held on 12/8/2020. Telephonic status hearing set for

1/22/2021 at 11:00 a.m. The call−in number is (888) 684−8852 and the access code is

1503395. By agreement, the Court deems the period of time from 12/8/2020 to 1/22/2021

excludable under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) − interest of justice. Mailed notice (cn).

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
Exhibit 31.4

Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Adam C. Spice, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of MaxLinear, Inc.; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: April 28, 2016 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Adam C. Spice                         
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Adam C. Spice                             
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Leigh D'Angelo","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/leigh-h-isaacsonnasa-gov\/","title":"Orion Heat Shield Move","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"68b76vL3C1\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-jsc2022e045336\/\">Orion Heat Shield Move<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-jsc2022e045336\/embed\/#?secret=68b76vL3C1\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Orion Heat Shield Move” — NASA\" data-secret=\"68b76vL3C1\" 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\/jsc2022e045336\/jsc2022e045336~large.jpg?w=600&h=1280&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1280}
Exhibit 99.2





CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


OF
MILLER EXPLORATION COMPANY


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 Miller Exploration Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Deanna L. Cannon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.S. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:





| | 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.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/    Deanna L.
Cannon





Deanna L. Cannon


Chief Financial Officer


August 12, 2002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Prinzo & Associates, LLC

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03256

Honorable Gary Feinerman

BMO Harris Bank, N.A., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, June 30, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gary Feinerman:Motion for extension of

time to answer [14] is granted. The deadline for Defendants to file a responsive pleading

is extended to 8/14/2020.Mailed notice.(jlj, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-03256 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/30/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:54
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-30634

Summary Calendar

 

IVORY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-795

________________________________________

November 30, 2000

Before POLITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ivory Williams, Jr. appeals the rejection of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in

which he challenges his conviction on guilty plea of aggravated kidnapping. The

district court granted a certificate of appealability.
1Venegas v. Henman, 126 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 1997).

2

Our review of the trial court’s denial of habeas relief is de novo as relates to

legal issues and for clear error as relates to factual determinations.1

Williams contends that he pleaded guilty to a constitutionally defective

indictment and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in connection with

the entry of his guilty plea thereon. Our review of the record persuades that these

contentions are without merit and are therefore rejected.

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
Is the minimum communication range for NR V2X now 50m instead of LTE V2X's 20m?

The minimum requirement is 50m, meaning it needs to support at least 50m.

It seems although driving is highlighted as a 5G use case, drone piloting is also

applicable. Is that also in the realm of 5G use cases?

Yes, PSCR has been looking into drone piloting as a 5G use case.

When will D2D become available?

It will be available soon; it is currently being worked on.

Does research activity on security include Mission-Critical Services' security framework?

The security research activity does not currently include Mission-Critical Services. There is a

potential opportunity in the future that this has more of a public safety use case.

As 5G SA is being deployed, what are the interoperability requirements with the LTE

network?

This may be left up to an operator decision. The 3GPP standards provide procedures for the

5G to LTE interworking. How this is accomplished will likely be implementation-specific.

Will ProSe on 5G be similar in bandwidth/capability to military Mobile Ad-Hoc Network

(MANET) radios?

PSCR does not have information regarding the military MANET radios.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

United States of America, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02658

Honorable Gary Feinerman

Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, August 5, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gary Feinerman:Attorneys/Parties should

appear for the 8/19/2020 [21] hearing by calling the Toll−Free Number: (877) 336−1828,

Access Code: 4082461. Members of the public and media will be able to call in to listen

to this hearing (use toll free number). Please, please be sure to keep your phone on mute

when you are not speaking. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of

the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court

proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of

court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future

hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Mailed notice.(jlj, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02658 Document #: 39 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:378
Subject: EXT :FW: NIST Cybersecurity RFI 

Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 1:44:40 PM 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening 

attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 

FYI 

Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 11:03 AM 

To: cyberframework <cyberframework@nist.gov> 

Subject: FW: NIST Cybersecurity RFI 

Sharing here 

Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 9:57 AM 

To: CSF-SCRM-RFI <CSF-SCRM-RFI@nist.gov> 

Subject: NIST Cybersecurity RFI 

NIST Cybersecurity RFI 

I use the NIST CSF across business sectors for a diverse group of organizations. I've had to 

simplify the steps to discovery, risk assessment, target profile, implementation, and assessment. 

This seems to work well for non-security professionals. Simplicity is best for adoption and 

translation. NIST has robust SPs, for example, SP 800-53, that cover supply chain risk 

management, risk assessment, etc. Understanding the other SPs in relation to CSF is key. 

One of the weak spots within the CSF is the maturity tiers. The qualitative risk assessment 

heatmap is inefficient. The industry is moving from qualitative assessment to quantitative. 

Accurately pin pointing the high risks within context requires a more accurate method. Hubbard 

and Seiersen have done great work in this area and any quality assessor is using quantitative 

methodology. If NIST fails to put out a quantitative risk assessment special publication, they may 

develop a legacy reputation in this area. 

Gabriel Silva 

CISO 

PDC Technology 

Sent with Proton Mail [gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] secure email.