alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 14,770.

#### Buckner *v.*Spaulding.

*Slander.*— Pleading.—Answer.—In an action for slander in charging the plaintiff with adultery with one man, an answer which alleges that she was guilty of adultery with another man, is bad.

Bill op *Exceptions.*— Time *of Filing.*— Where the record shows that the • bill of exceptions was not filed within the time allowed by the court, and it does not appear in the body of the bill when it was presented, the bill will not be regarded as properly in the record.

From the Greene Circuit Court.

*A. G. Gavins, E. H. C. Cavins*and *W. S. Cavins,*for appellant.

*J. S. Bays, W. W. Moffett*and *G. E. Davis,*for appellee.

Elliott, J.

The complaint alleges that the defendant, here the appellant, slandered the plaintiff by falsely charging her with adultery with one Williams. The answer is, in substance, that the plaintiff did have sexual intercourse with one Ploder. The answer is so clearly bad that discussion is unnecessary. *Hallowell*v. *Guntle,*82 Ind. 554; *Ricket*v. *Stanley,*6 Blackf. 169. It is no answer to a slanderous charge that the plaintiff was guilty of a specific act of adultery with one man to allege that she was guilty of a specific act of adultery with another man.

The record shows that the bill of exceptions was not filed *230within the time allowed by the court, and it does not appear in the body of the bill when it was presented to the judge. The bill can not be regarded as properly in the record. *City of Plymouth*v. *Fields,*125 Ind. *323; Rigler*v. *Rigler,*120 Ind. 431; *Buchart*v. *Burger,*115 Ind. 123.

Filed Feb. 7, 1891.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           878
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 22,167
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,701
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              26,178
<PP&E>                                        16,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,506
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               183,896
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         99,486
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         127
<OTHER-SE>                                    78,043
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 183,896
<SALES>                                      137,512
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             137,512
<CGS>                                         85,111
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 50,057
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6,242
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (3,898)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     474
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (4,372)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (4,372)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.35)



</TABLE>
ttaitSinon.„ J. 

Parraguirre 

Pickering 

on its petition for writ relief. In the stay motion, which this court 

subsequently denied, petitioner presented issues and a summary of 

arguments pertaining to its request for writ relief. Thus, although 

petitioner's only filing in this court was the July 25 emergency stay 

motion, it appears that the motion was intended as a combined stay 

motion/writ petition. In seeking writ relief, petitioner asserts that because 

the district court had not entered a written order denying its request for a 

preliminary injunction, there was no order on which to base an appeal. 

Petitioner thus appears to argue that given the lack of a written, 

appealable order, a petition for writ relief is the appropriate method to 

seek this court's review of the district court's oral ruling denying the 

preliminary injunction. Petitioner's reasoning is flawed, see NRAP 

3A(b)(3) (providing that an order refusing to grant an injunction is 

substantively appealable); Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. 

Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (explaining that writ 

relief is typically not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, 

and adequate remedy at law); Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 

689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that a district court's oral 

ruling is ineffective for any purpose), and as petitioner has an adequate 

remedy in the form of an appeal from any final, appealable written order, 

we deny the petition for writ relief. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Saitta 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge 

Brandon L. Phillips, Attorney At Law, PLLC 

Malcolm Cisneros/Irvine CA 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A 94e147
{"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":"Venus Atmosphere and Cloud Particle Sample Return for Astrobiology","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"njUxF8grLh\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/science-research\/planetary-science\/planetary-environments-atmospheres\/venus-atmosphere-and-cloud-particle-sample-return-for-astrobiology\/\">Venus Atmosphere and Cloud Particle Sample Return for Astrobiology<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/science-research\/planetary-science\/planetary-environments-atmospheres\/venus-atmosphere-and-cloud-particle-sample-return-for-astrobiology\/embed\/#?secret=njUxF8grLh\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Venus Atmosphere and Cloud Particle Sample Return for Astrobiology” — NASA\" data-secret=\"njUxF8grLh\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/2022_ph_i_seager.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":303}
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65702-65703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26332]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--ODVA, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 15, 2014, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), ODVA, Inc. (``ODVA'') has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Aparian, Inc., 
Irvine, CA; Doosan Heavy Industrial & Construction Co., Ltd., Daejeon, 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA; FASTECH, Bucheon, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Insight 
Automation, Inc., Erlanger, KY; K.A. Schmersal GmbH & Co. KG, 
Wuppertal, GERMANY; Nordson Corporation, Westlake, OH; Rocon L.L.C., 
Hazel Park, MI; and SAMWON ACT Co., Ltd., Busan, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, 
have been added as parties to this venture.
    Also, Alstom Transport, Levallois-Perret, FRANCE; Altera 
Corporation, San Jose, CA; Beijing KLT Electric Co., Ltd., Beijing, 
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Jacobs Automation, Hebron, KY; Jetter AG, 
Ludwigsburg, GERMANY; Monaghan Engineering, Inc., Dripping Springs, TX; 
Monduran Pty Ltd, Southport, AUSTRALIA; Secure Crossing, Dearborn, MI; 
Sierra Instruments, Monterey, CA; TDK-Lambda, Neptune, NJ; Thermo 
Scientific AquaSensors, Waltham, MA; Trebing + Himstedt, Schwerin, 
GERMANY; and Wolke Inks & Printers GmbH, Hersbruck, GERMANY, have 
withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned

[[Page 65703]]

activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and ODVA intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 21, 1995, ODVA filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 
15, 1996 (61 FR 6039).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 15, 
2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on August 11, 2014 (79 FR 46876).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-26332 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1264

JIHUI ZHANG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FEDERATION OF STATE MEDICAL BOARDS; NATIONAL BOARD OF 

MEDICAL EXAMINERS; PROMETRIC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:11-cv-00129-CCE-PTS)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jihui Zhang, Appellant Pro Se. Jon Berkelhammer, Patrick 

Michael Kane, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Greensboro, North

Carolina; Benjamin R. Norman, Reid Lloyd Phillips, BROOKS, 

PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jihui Zhang appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Zhang v. Fed’n of State 

Med. Bds., No. 1:11-cv-00129-CCE-PTS (M.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 2012). 

We 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 3.1
 THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
 OF
 REAL MEX RESTAURANTS, INC.
 Corporation DGCL
 1.
    
    The name of the Corporation is Real Mex Restaurants, Inc. The original
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed with the Secretary of State
of the State of Delaware on May 15, 1998, and has since been amended and restated from
time to time. The original name of the corporation was Acapulco Acquisition Corp.
 2.
    
    This Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation has been duly
adopted by the board of directors of the Corporation (the Board of Directors)
by unanimous written consent in lieu of a meeting in accordance with Sections 141(f),
242 and 245 of the DGCL and by the stockholders of the Corporation by written consent
in lieu of a meeting thereof in accordance with Sections 228, 242 and 245 of the DGCL,
and amends and supersedes in its entirety the Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation.
 3.
    
    The Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of this Corporation is
hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:
 ARTICLE ONE
 NAME
 Corporation




---



##### 



ARTICLE TWO
 ADDRESS OF REGISTERED AGENT
  ARTICLE THREE
 PURPOSE
  ARTICLE FOUR
 CAPITAL STOCK
 Designation and Amount Common Stock
 Common Stock
 Dividends
 Voting Rights
 Liquidation
  2




---



##### 



ARTICLE FIVE
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 Board of Directors
 Restrictions
             3




---



##### 



Committees
 Termination of Provisions Paragraphs (b) and (c) Article Five
 ARTICLE SIX
 EXISTENCE
  ARTICLE SEVEN
 BYLAWS
 paragraph (b) Article Five
  4




---



##### 



ARTICLE EIGHT
 MEETINGS OF STOCKHOLDERS
  ARTICLE NINE
 INDEMNIFICATION
 Nature of Indemnity proceeding paragraph (b) Article Nine Article Nine paragraphs (b) and (d) Article Nine
  5




---



##### 



Procedure for Indemnification of Directors and Officers paragraph (a) Article Nine paragraph (d) Article Nine Article Nine Article Nine
 Insurance Article Nine
 Expenses paragraph (a) Article Nine
 Employees and Agents Article Nine
  6




---



##### 



Contract Rights Article Nine Article Nine Article Nine
 Merger or Consolidation Article Nine Article Nine
 Exculpation Article Nine
 Nonexclusivity of Article Nine Article Nine
 ARTICLE TEN
 BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
 Article Ten
  7




---



##### 



ARTICLE ELEVEN
 BUSINESS COMBINATIONS
  ARTICLE TWELVE
 AMENDMENTS
 paragraph (b) Article Five
   8




---



##### 



REAL MEX RESTAURANTS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Frederick F. WolfeName:
    
    Frederick F. WolfeTitle:
    
    CEO and President
  9
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls 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 the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosures controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Carlos E. AgüeroCarlos E. AgüeroChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7447** 

CRAIG L. SCOTT , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. CHARLES WILLIAMS, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg
. Gina M. Groh , Chief District Judge. ( 3:14

- cv - 00133

- GMG

- JES )

Submitted : January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Craig Lamont Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Craig L. Scott , a federal p risoner, appeals the district
court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge a nd denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, and a subsequent order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2 255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. We conclude that the district court properly denied relief on Scott’s § 2241 petition and dismissed his Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court and grant Scott’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. S e e Scott v. W illiams , No. 3:14

- cv 00133

- GMG

- JES (N.D.W. Va. June 17, 2015; Sept. 3, 2015) ; United
States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that a certificate of appealability is unnecessary where a district court dismisses a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive habeas motion). Additionally, we construe Scott’s notice of appeal and info rmal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:3 (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Scott’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff Gale Clapper (“Clapper”), by and through her

counsel, Cade Law Group LLC, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Seventh Circuit appeals from the district court’s (1) Opinion and Order, Dkt. 92, 

entered on October 25, 2022, Granting Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment, Dkt.

77, and Judgment entered on October 25, 2022, Dkt. 93 and (2) Opinion and Order,

Dkt.120, entered on April 4, 2023, denying motion for reconsideration of that summary 

judgment ruling.

Dated this 3rd day of May, 2023.

CADE LAW GROUP LLC

By: s/Annalisa Pusick

Nathaniel Cade, Jr., SBN 1028115

Annalisa Pusick SBN: 1116379

P.O. Box 170887 

Milwaukee, WI 53217

(414) 255-3802 phone)

(414) 255-3804 (fax)

nate@cade-law.com

annalisa@cade-law.com

 Attorney for Clapper

GALE CLAPPER

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED AIRLINES INC., and 

ABC INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants.

Case No. 20-CV-02635

Hon. Manish S. Shah

___________________________________________________________________________

Case: 1:20-cv-02635 Document #: 121 Filed: 05/03/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:4149
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of May, 2023 a true and accurate copy of the 

foregoing Notice of Appeal was served via the Court’s CM/ECF system upon all counsel 

of record.

CADE LAW GROUP LLC

By: s/Annalisa Pusick

Nathaniel Cade, Jr., SBN 1028115

Annalisa Pusick SBN: 1116379

P.O. Box 170887 

Milwaukee, WI 53217 

(414) 255-3802 (phone) 

(414) 255-3804 (fax) 

Attorney for Clapper

Case: 1:20-cv-02635 Document #: 121 Filed: 05/03/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:4150
1

Challenges in Forensic Face Recognition

Dr. P. Jonathon Phillips 

National Institute of Standards and Technology
Who is this person?
Is this same person?
• One Face Image per Person

Problem 1: Controlled Illumination vs. Controlled Illumination

From FERET to MBE 2010
From FERET to MBE 2010

FERET 1993

(Partially Automatic)

Data Sets

FERET 1996

(Fully Automatic)

FRVT 2002

(Fully Automatic)

FRVT 2006

(Fully Automatic)

MBE 2010

(Fully Automatic)

FRR at FAR = 0.001

Year of Evaluation
• All probes in gallery

• Score: Rank 1 Identification

6

Closed-set Identification

Large Gallery (1.6 million)

Who is this person?
MBE 2010 Closed-set Identification

SDK

Gallery of 

1.6 million 

Photo file 

images
Technology Progress

1996

2003

2000 2002

2006

2012

1993

2005

• 19 Years

• 9 Evaluations

• 6 Grand Challenges

• 3 Biometrics

• 200,000+ Face and Iris 

Images

2009

MBE 

2010 

FRVT 

2012 

2010

2012 FOCS 
Ambient Illumination

Good Challenging Very Challenging
Face Pairs

Good Challenging Very Challenging
Good, Bad, Ugly Performance
Is this same person?
Is this same person?
Is this same person?
Reverse ROC Performance

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Face Only Body Only Face/Body

Original

Human

Algorithm

15

Area Under the ROC (AUC)
Video

• Motion

• Body and Face

• Cross-pose

• Low resolution
Gait Experiments

gait video

conversation video

body only face only

CG

CC

GG

Static Face 
Summary of Video

• In hard cases (poor viewing conditions), humans 

take advantage of face, body, still, & video

• Evidence: algorithms do NOT take advantage of 

face, body, still, & video

• Learn from the human visual system.

– Functional

– Perceptual

• Incorporate into algorithm design.
Example of Point & Shoot Face Images

Courtesy PittPatt
Research direction:

Robust recognition of unfamiliar 

faces.
Question:

What is the most robust face 

recognition platform?
The Goal

Algorithm 

/ System ROC ≥
Human and Machine Performance

• Algorithms Better (Normal Humans)

– Mugshots & Mobile Studio environments

– Digital Single Lens Reflex

• Mobile Studio and Ambient Lighting

• Humans Better

– Non-face identity cues

– Cross-pose (video—one experiment)

• Not Measured

– Point and Shot Cameras

– Change in Pose (in general)
The Challenge

• Problem: Robust Recognition of Unfamiliar Faces

• Imagery

– Point & Shoot Still

– Video

– Unconstrained Environment

• Goal: Human Level Performance

– Untrained Humans

– Trained Professionals

– Forensic Examiners
25

Questions?
November 15, 2011

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DAVID LORENZA JOYNCER, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00808-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The 

record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion, that the appellant pay all costs expended in 

this appeal, and that this decision be certified below for observance.