alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"Dr. John A. Cavolowsky","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"kMdipYT7lv\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/dr-john-a-cavolowsky\/\">Dr. John A. Cavolowsky<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/dr-john-a-cavolowsky\/embed\/#?secret=kMdipYT7lv\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Dr. John A. Cavolowsky” — NASA\" data-secret=\"kMdipYT7lv\" 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\/2023\/01\/john-cavolowsky.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":847}
Case 2:15-mj-01934-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01934-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01934-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Fernando Moreno, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03545

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

Best Firewood and Mulch, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, June 1, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Telephonic motion

hearing held on 6/1/2021. Motions for approval of settlement [24] [25] are granted for the

reasons stated on the record. The case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the

settlement. The dismissal will convert to a dismissal with prejudice on 7/1/2021 unless a

motion to reinstate is filed before that date. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (mma, )

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-03545 Document #: 26 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:85
----

----

| Scott      Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc | Suite      501, 55 University Avenue, Toronto, ON  M5J 2H7T (416) 947-0907  F (416)      947-0395www.scottwilson.com |   |
|------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

| To:          | Crosshair      Exploration & Mining Corp.                             |
|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         | British      Columbia Securities Commission                               |
|         | Alberta      Securities Commission                                        |
|         | Saskatchewan      Financial Services Commission (Securities Division)     |
|         | Manitoba      Securities Commission                                       |
|         | Ontario      Securities Commission                                        |
|         | New      Brunswick Securities Commission                                  |
|         | Nova      Scotia Securities Commission                                    |
|         | Newfoundland      and Labrador, Securities Division                       |
|         | Registrar      of Securities, Prince Edward Island                        |
|         | United      States Securities and Exchange Commission                     |
|         |                                                                      |
| AND      TO: | Toronto      Stock Exchange                                               |
|         | NYSE      Amex Equities                                                   |
|         |                                                                      |
| RE:          | Crosshair      Exploration & Mining Corp. (“Crosshair”) - |
|         | Consent      under National Instrument 43-101                             |

|        (Signed)      “David A. Ross” |          |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|
| David      A. Ross, M.Sc., P.Geo.                     |               |

----

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Ana Guzman","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/ana-d-guzmannasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Astronaut Loral O\u2019Hara, Expedition 70 Science Highlights","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"VpfKYmWkmm\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/iss-research\/nasa-astronaut-loral-ohara-expedition-70-science-highlights\/\">NASA Astronaut Loral O\u2019Hara, Expedition 70 Science Highlights<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/iss-research\/nasa-astronaut-loral-ohara-expedition-70-science-highlights\/embed\/#?secret=VpfKYmWkmm\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Astronaut Loral O\u2019Hara, Expedition 70 Science Highlights” — NASA\" data-secret=\"VpfKYmWkmm\" 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\/iss070e110532\/iss070e110532~large.jpg?w=600&h=1280&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1280}
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

Sep tember 22, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00500

- CV

IN THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF S.W.,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- MH

- 2596

Honorable Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding

No. 04

- 15

- 00505

- CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF S.W.,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- MH

- 2544

Honorable Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

These are ac celerated appeals from the trial court’s Order to Compel Psychoactive Medications and from the trial court’s Judgment

- Court

- Ordered Temporary Mental Health

Services. Appellant’s brief s were originally due on September 7, 2015 and September 8 , 201 4,

respec tively

. On September 22, 2015, appellant filed motions for an extension of time in which to file a brief and motions to consolidate the appeals.

The motions are GRANTED and it is ORDERED that the two cases shall be consolidated for briefing and argument purposes (if argument is requested and granted). The parties shall file motions, briefs, and other pleadings as if the two appeals were one case, but shall put both appeal numbers in the style of the case. The records, however, shall remain separated. I f oral argument is requested and granted, both cases shall be argued together, as a single appeal, and the total time limit for each side at oral argument shall equal the ordinary time limit for a single appeal. The court will dispose of the entire case w ith the same judgment, opinion, and mandate.

It is ORDERED that appellant’s retained attorney, Mr. Michael S. Raign, file appellant’s

brief no later than October 8, 2015

. Because this is an accelerated appeal, no further extensions of time will be gra nted absent extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of September, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 Concept Paper

Rebellion Defense, Inc.’s Comments regarding NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

Concept Paper

RD Comment

In its concept paper, NIST lists several sections with potential significant changes to CSF 2.0.

Furtherto section 6, “CSF 2.0 will advance understanding of cybersecurity measurement

and assessment,” NIST should encourage and describe the use of continuous automated

tools, such as adversary emulation, to test the effectiveness of the “Protect” and “Detect”

functions of the CSF.

One of the top challenges of cybersecurity is the evolving threat picture as our adversaries

adapt to our countermeasures and develop ever more sophisticated techniques to penetrate

our systems (GAO, 2021). Since NIST’s 2021 report on systems security engineering noted

the importance ofred-teaming and automated incidentresponse in developing a risk

management strategy to counter evolving adversaries, federal guidance both from DoD as

well as civilian oversight agencies have flagged the importance of advanced automation to

emulate adversary tactics, techniques and procedures at scale across critical networks to

deliver a contextualized understanding of how cyber defenses stand against a real-world

attack scenario.

The DoD Software Modernization Strategy highlighted the importance of shifting from a

cybersecurity “snapshot in time” compliance culture to “automation, real-time continuous

risk monitoring” as the necessity for software development pipelines. The Department of

Navy’s Cyber Ready initiative includes the requirement for automated adversarial testing

tools.

In November, 2022, the Defense Departmentreleased their Zero-Trust Strategy and

Roadmap to accelerate “the shift from compliance-based to risk-based security approaches

as the complexity of threats and vulnerabilities increases.” Implementation of Zero Trust

architectures is one thing but implementations will need to be tested; automated adversary

emulation mechanizes manual security testing to allow for continued monitoring across the

enterprise to inform a response to emerging threats. It validates the effectiveness of Zero

Trust practices with speed and at scale.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outside of Defense, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Administration (CISA)’s

2023 - 2025 Strategic Plan also highlights the importance of automating security controls to

scale threat testing capability with the increasing workload and size of IT enterprises. GAO’s

recent 2022 report also recommended the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security

Administration “develop and maintain cybersecurity continuous monitoring strategies” that

address NIST guidance.

All federal government agencies and federal contractors (including subcontractors) must be

compliant with a number of federal security standards, all of which align with the NIST

framework. As such, and in the spirit of moving towards optimizing fortrue security versus

compliance, it would be helpful for NIST to both encourage and describe use of continuous

automated tools within the framework, as appropriate.
#### Henking, Allemong & Co. *v*Louisa P. Harris.

Bills and Notes — Promise to Pay After Discoverture — Evidence of.

In the conversation detailed by the witness, the appellee spoke of paying the debts and said they ought to be paid and that she was going to pay all her debts but did not say particularly that she was going to pay these debts.

Held, that such a conversation cannot be construed into a promise to pay notes, when she was then resisting the collection of the same by a legal defense.

APPEAL FROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT.

October 25, 1871.

*James, Jones, for appellant.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The provision of the act of the general assembly, approved January 21, 1869, to the effect that the estate of Mrs. Harris should be liable for any debts she then owed, was intended to apply to such debts as she was then legally bound to pay, and not to such as she had already been exonerated from paying by the judgment of this court, or other competent judicial tribunal.

It is not necessary that we should determine whether or not the moral obligation resting upon appellee to pay the notes sued on in this action would have been sufficient consideration to support a promise to pay them made after she had become discoverture.

It is sufficient that in our opinion she has made no such promise so far as appears from the evidence presented by this record.

In the conversation detailed by the witness Shoemaker, she spoke of paying these debts; said they ought to be paid, and that she was going to pay all her debts, but the witness says expressly that she did not say particularly that she was going to pay these debts. Such a conversation cannot be construed into a promise to pay notes, the collection of which she was then resisting by the inter position into this case, of every available legal defense. The judgment of the circuit court, dismissing appellant’s petition, is affirmed.
#### VITO LEMONGELLI, APPELLANT, v. THE CARLSON COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

Submitted October 26, 1945

Decided January 3, 1946.

For the appellant, *Cohen é Klein.*

For the respondent, *Kalisch & Kalisch.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Colie in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Case, Bobine, Donges, Perskie, Oliphant, Wells, Rafferty, Dri.L, Freund, McG-eehan, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— None.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6304

GEORGE LEON SPENCER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. WATSON; R. S. JOHNSON; L. C. PHIPPS; CAROLYN BYRAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-664-R) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Leon Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; George W. Wooten, Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: George Leon Spencer appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Spencer v. Watson , No. CA-97-664-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 3, 1998). 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 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal financial officer of Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that, to his knowledge:

1) the Companys Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, 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 Companys Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Michael P. ODonnellMichael P. ODonnell Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


Dated: April 8, 2008
#### John Martin and Wife *v.*R. E. Allen, etc.

Husband and Wife — Power of Husband to Purchase Land for Wife, Subject to Her Approval — Recording Deed does not Conclude Wife.

Where it is conceded that the husband’s power to purchase land for his wife was restricted to her ratification and approval and that she had neither ratified nor approved the purchase nor accepted the conveyance, the fact that the deed had been recorded does not conclude her. She may still raise an issue of fact as to whether or not she accepted it.

APPEAL PROM MC CRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

March 4, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

As the suit of *Allen v. Martin, Executors,*was consolidated with tha)t of Wm. I. Martin, and thereby all the necessary parties brought before the court in each case, the demurrer to Allen's petition was properly overruled. The demurrer to the amended answer of Mrs. Eliza M. Martin admits that the property bought from King was purchased for her -benefit -by her -husband; that the two-thousand-dollar judgment made cash in hand was paid *106out of money belonging to -her individually, and in which her said husband had no interest. That his authority to invest her means in such property was restricted to the right to negotiate the contract, and that was not to be consummated until ratified and approved by her; that she had never ratified the purchase of the house and lots from King, and that she had not accepted the conveyance made to her by King- and wife. And further that King had no title to the property in question. To concede the existence of these facts, it seems to us is to concede the right of Mrs. Martin to a rescission of the contract between King and her husband, unless the latter can within a reasonable time invest himself with the title to the property. The mere fact that the deed had been put to record does not conclude Mrs. Martin. She may still raise an issue of fact as to whether or not she has accepted it. If she has not accepted it, the contract of sale is still executory, and ought not to be specifically enforced, in case her answer should be sustained by proof. The demurrer should have been overruled, and her vendor King made a party defendant to her cross petition, and in case it turns out that his deed has not been accepted he should be compelled to make exhibition of his title. The judgment appealed from must be reversed. The cause is rema.nded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*Bigger & Moss, for appellant.*

*King, for appellee.*
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 39 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 39

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to afford witnesses 
     greater freedom to provide information to House committees by 
            eliminating current administrative requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 1997

 Mr. Skaggs submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to afford witnesses 
     greater freedom to provide information to House committees by 
            eliminating current administrative requirements.

    Resolved, That the second sentence of clause 2(g)(4) of rule XI of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
______________________________

Subject: EXT :FW: NIST CSF 2.0 Submission - Security and Strategic Business Decision Making 

Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 1:21:54 PM 

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

attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 

FYI 

Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 1:40 PM 

To: cyberframework <cyberframework@nist.gov> 

Subject: NIST CSF 2.0 Submission - Security and Strategic Business Decision Making 

Hello, 

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to NIST CSF 2.0! Bill Lyons and I have addressed our 

feedback below. Please reach out to us if there are any questions. 

Security and Strategic Business Decision Making 

Information Security is a critical business function, especially in highly regulated industries, and is 

frequently omitted from strategic decisions such as emerging markets, mergers and acquisitions, 

and changes in technology. As a result of being excluded from these decisions, Information 

Security teams routinely find themselves on the defensive desperately trying to maintain the 

required baseline and sacrificing engineering opportunities. 

Security Risk Advisors (SRA) would like to propose that a control is added towards Strategy 

Business Decision Making. Based upon our experience, many companies have succeeded in 

forming an enterprise Architecture Review Board (ARB) as the primary touch point for a 

company’s strategic decisions. The ARB commonly hosts associates from Procurement, Human 

Resources, Infrastructure, Change Management, Security, Privacy etc. and is the starting point for 

enterprise projects. Not only does the ARB add guardrails to enterprise decisions and projects it 

also incorporates multi-departmental communication and awareness throughout the enterprise. 

This control would potentially be grouped in the Identify function within the Governance 

category, as ID.GV-5 “An Architecture Review Board ensures that relevant organizational 

stakeholders coordinate for new technology deployments.” 

Cheers, 

Megan DeWitt | Security Risk Advisors |