alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jeremiah Butts et al. v. Nelson J. Davis et al.

*Evidence in suit on bond*— .Windings *of fact.*

Evidence of the proceedings against a person arrested as a fraudulent debtor were properly admitted in an action upon the bond given by him in the course of such proceedings.

In a case tried by a judge without a jury it is for the trial judge himself and not for the appellate court to decide what conclusions the evidence will warrant.

A finding of facts should be obtained as well as the conclusions of law dependent thereon, if a party to an action at law tried without a. jury desires the Supreme Court to review the whole case.

Error to Berrien. (A. J. Smith, J.)

April 5.

April 11.

Debt. Plaintiffs bring error.

Affirmed.

*Theodore G. Beaver*for appellants.

*Clapp & Fyfe*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

This case was tried by the circuit judge without a jury, and comes before us with bill of exceptions. The suit was upon a bond given by the defendant Nelson J. Davis, who had been arrested as a fraudulent debtor, and gave this bond with condition that he would mate an assignment under the statute.

The court permitted the defendants to put in evidence the proceedings in the course of which the bond was given. This was done on a claim that the proceedings were void. Their admission is now assigned for error. But, if the proceedings were void in fact, the bond was without consideration, and if valid their proof could not harm the plaintiffs.

*311The remaining assignments of error resolve themselves into this: that the judgment should have been for the plaintiffs on the evidence. But it was for the circuit judge, and not for this Court, to determine what conclusions the evidence would warrant. If plaintiffs desired a review of the whole case in this Court, they should have had the facts found, as well as the conclusions of law dependent upon them, and we could then have determined whether the conclusions were well founded.

Judgment affirmed with costs.
Order entered January 14, 2020

In t he 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 00463 - CR GERALD JEFFERSON MUN OZ MONTANO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal fr om the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18 - 00457 - Y



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s January 10, 2020 second motion for extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief due on or before February 18, 2020. F ailure to file a brief by that date may result in the appeal being abated for a trial court hearing. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 8 (b)(3).

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
Northrop Grumman

2980 Fairview Park Drive 

Falls Church, Virginia 22042-4511

northropgrumman.com 

September 23, 2022

Ms. Elham Tabassi

National Institute of Standards and Technology

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 200

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

AIframework@nist.gov

Dear Ms. Tabassi,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the latest draft of Artificial Intelligence Risk 

Management Framework (AI RMF). We are pleased to see our prior comments addressed, particularly 

the emphasis on the potential for positive impact of AI and the importance of considering context when 

assessing risk and opportunity. We offer the following additional comments on the latest draft.

• The box labeled “Human Factors” on Page 12 takes a narrow view of a human’s role in an AI

system. As written, the human is described solely as a decision-maker that takes in AI’s suggestions.

This depiction does not allow for consideration of true human-AI teaming (such as described in the

National Academies’ paper on “Human-AI Teaming: State-of-the-Art and Research Needs”

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26355/human-ai-teaming-state-of-the-art-and-researchneeds), nor does it align with the definition of Human Factors tasks described in Appendix A on page

28. We recommend this section be rewritten to align with the view of human-AI teaming described in

the National Academies study.

• In Appendix A beginning on Page 27, the alignment between the actors described and the tasks

in Figure 1 is not clear. In addition, the list is a mix of technical domains (e.g., AI Design) and

categories of actors (e.g., End Users). Recommend using the same terms in the Appendix as in Figure

1 and clarifying the role of the actors vs. the description of technical domains.

We appreciate the continued opportunity to engage with NIST on this important topic. If you have any 

questions, please do not hesitate to reach out. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. Amanda C. Muller 

Chief, Responsible Technology
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

*CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Granite City Food &Brewery Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 25,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, James G. Gilbertson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.                                       the Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.                                       the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Dated: | May 5, 2008 | By:    | /s/James G.  Gilbertson  |
|--------|------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |             |   | James G.  Gilbertson     |
|   |             |   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1

Eastern Division

Demetrius Johnson

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04156

Honorable Sara L. Ellis

Reynaldo Guevara, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, February 29, 2024:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: In court hearing held on

2/29/2024. Joint motion to resolve disputed material facts [302] is resolved as stated on

the record. Defendants' motion for summary judgment due by 4/12/2024; Plaintiff's

response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment due by 5/13/2024; and Defendants'

reply for their motion for summary judgment due by 6/10/2024. Daubert motions are on

the same briefing schedule. Ruling date on summary judgment and Daubert motions is

due by 9/17/2024 at 9:30 AM. Mailed notice(rj, )

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-04156 Document #: 307 Filed: 02/29/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:14928
9661.

#### Taylor *v.*Wilkins.

Decided October 16, 1918.

Certiorari; from Ifultou-superior court—Judge Bell. March 29, 1918.

*Hughes Roberts,*for plaintiff. *'Arminius Wright,*for defendant. ■

Broyles, P. J.

1. Where A lent certain finger-rings to B, and B, unknown to A, gave them to 0 as a present, the fact that 0 retained continuous open possession of them (claiming them as her property), in this State, for more than four years, does not' give her a good title by prescription, where it appears that B had never, to the knowledge of A, claimed title to the property nor refused to return the rings to A, and where it further appears that A had no knowledge that they were in the possession of C. Under such’ circumstances 0 did not have adverse possession of the property, within the meaning of section 4172 of the Civil Code of 1910, which provides that adverse possession of personal property within this. State, for four years, shall give good title by. prescription.

2. The court erred in overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.*
#### Watson and Another *v.*Mattox, on Appeal.

ASSUMPSIT by *Mattóx*against *John H. Watson*and *Henry Allen,*for a quantity of plank sold and ■ delivered. Plea, the general issue. There was'some evidence of *Watson’s*acknowledgment of his having received the plank; but there was no proof of any liability on the part of *Allen.*

Held, that this being an action on a contract against two persons, and there being no evidence except as to one of them, the plaintiff could not recover. 1 Chitt. Pl. 50.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and the
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of ACME Intermediate
Holdings, LLC (the Company) hereby certify that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
March 31, 2003 of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and



| |                                                                                                                                                          
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

Dated: May 14, 2003

| |                                     
| | ------------------------------------
| | /s/ Jamie Kellner                   
| |                                     
| | Jamie Kellner                       
| | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
| |                                     
| | /s/ Thomas D. Allen                 
| |                                     
| | Thomas D. Allen                     
| | Executive Vice President and Chief  
| | Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)





I,
Charles E. Ramey, of US Dataworks, Inc. certify pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





(i) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the
“Report”), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and





(ii) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of US Dataworks, Inc. as of
the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.





Dated:
November 16, 2009





/s/ Charles E. RameyCharles
      E. RameyChief
      Executive Officer
H. Res. 366

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 25, 1998.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 2181) to ensure the safety of witnesses and to

promote notification of the interstate relocation of witnesses

by States and localities engaging in that relocation, and for

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall

be considered by title rather than by section. Each title shall

be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole

may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the

Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed
2

•HRES 366 EH

in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for

that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request

for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five

minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without

intervening business, provided that the minimum time for

electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall

be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the

bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the

bill to the House with such amendments as may have been

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
- 283 - 

### N ebraska 

### S upreme 

### C ourt 

### A dva nc e 

### S heets 

### 302 N ebraska 

### R eports U.S. SPECIALTY INS. CO. v . D S AVIONICS Cite as 302 Neb. 283



### U

. S

. S pe c ialty 

### I n sura nc e 

### C ompa n y 

### , a c orporatio n 

### , appellee 

### , v



### . D S A vio n i c s 

### U n limited 

### LL C, appella n t



### .

___ N.W.2d ___ Filed February 15, 2019. No. S-17-1101.

suppleme n tal opi n io n 

### Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: S helly 

### R

. S tratma n 

### , Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modified. Motions for rehearing overruled. Thomas M. Locher, of Locher, Pavelka, Dostal, Braddy & Hammes, L.L.C., for appellant. Robert E. O’Connor, Jr., for appellee.
H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., M iller


### - L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , S ta c y 

### , F u n ke 

### , and P

apik 

### , JJ., and J oh n so n 

### , District Judge

.

P er 

### C uriam



### . This case is before us on motions for rehearing filed by the appellant, D S Avionics Unlimited LLC, and the appellee, U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, concerning our opinion in U.S. Specialty Ins. Co. v. D S Avionics

. 1 

### We overrule the motions, but we modify the opinion as follows:

1 U.S. Specialty Ins. Co. v. D S Avionics , 301 Neb. 388, 918 N.W.2d 589

(2018). Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 03/22/2019 01:05 AM CDT- 284 - 

### N ebraska 

### S upreme 

### C ourt 

### A dva nc e 

### S heets 

### 302 N ebraska 

### R eports U.S. SPECIALTY INS. CO. v . D S AVIONICS Cite as 302 Neb. 283 

### In the “Declaratory Judgment Was Premature” subsection, we strike the third sentence of the first paragraph, including footnote 14. 2 

### Also in the same subsection, after the fourth sentence of the second paragraph, 3 

### we insert the following sen

tence: “‘This rule embraces not only cases where the identi

cal issues between the same parties are sub judice , but also possibly cases in which the issues only are identical but not the parties.’” 4 

### The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opi n io n modi f ied



### . M otio n s f or reheari n g overruled



### .

2 Id . at 398, 918 N.W.2d at 596.
3 Id . at 399, 918 N.W.2d at 596.
4 Strawn v. County of Sarpy , 146 Neb. 783, 788, 21 N.W.2d 597, 600

(1946).
#### Daniel Chapman v. The County of Berrien.

*Salary of judge of probate*— Supervisors.

After the supervisors have once fixed the salary of the judge of probate, they cannot reduce it.

Act 138 of 1871 gave the board of supervisors power to fix the salary of the judge of probate. Act 140 of 1873 amended it but did not alter the effect of this provision. *Held,*that the mere fact of the amendment and re-enactment of the empowering clause did not authorize a board to fix again a salary which they had once fixed.

Error to Berrien. (A. J. Smith, J.)

Apr. 10.

Apr. 18.

Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Prosecuting Attorney *James A. Kellogg*for appellant.

A new law cannot be controlled by an old one, unless that intent is plainly expressed: *Chapoton v. Detroit*38 Mich. 636; if the later act covers the whole subject of the first, and contains new provisions, showing that it was intended as a substitute, it will operate as a repeal: *Breitung v. Lindauer*31 Mich. 233; *United States v. Tynen*11 Wall. 92; *Comstock v. Judge of Superior Court*39 Mich. 191; the Legislature can fix the salaries of public officers, and, unless restrained by the Constitution, change them at any time, even during the official term, and it can delegate this *312power: *Knappen v. Barry Supervisors*46 Mich. 22; *Wyandotte v. Premum*id. 478.

*Potter & Potter*and *George S. Clapp*for appellee.

Campbell, J.

The only question arising in this case relates to the right of plaintiff to recover a portion remaining unpaid of his salary as judge of probate of Berrien county, as fixed by the board of supervisors in the beginning of January, 1873, when his four-years’ term was opening. He was elected in 1872, and the salary thus fixed at $1500. In January, 1875, the salary was sought to be reduced to $1000, but he declined to receive that rate except under protest, and sued seasonably for the balance. The court below gave judgment in his favor, on the ground that the action of January, 1873, was the first action had under the law of 1871, requiring the supervisors to act, and was binding.

This was, we think, correct. In *Powoiellds case*40 Mich. 587, the first action taken by the board, as then shown to us, was after the law had been amended in 1873, and we held it could not subsequently be changed. It afterwards appeared on an application for a rehearing, that earlier action had been had, and the judgment was recalled. The law of 1873 was a mere amendment of that of 1871 so far as it concerned "Wayne county, and no further, and would not, in our opinion, justify the rescission of the vote fixing the salary at the beginning of plaintiff’s term. It does not, like the law of 1871, repeal the former legislation, and it is manifestly designed for no such purpose.

We think the judgment should be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Thomas Gurkowski, Secretary/Treasurer and CFO of Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Annual Report on 10KSB of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.



Date: January 13, 2006.



/s/ Thomas Gurkowski

_______________________

Thomas Gurkowski

(Secretary/Treasurer and CFO)
Case: 1:20-cv-03871 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/17/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:37
H. Res. 212

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 10, 1998.

Whereas suicide, the ninth leading cause of all deaths in the

United States and the third such cause for young persons

ages 15 through 24, claims over 31,000 lives annually,

more than homicide;

Whereas suicide attempts, estimated to exceed 750,000 annually, adversely impact the lives of millions of family members;

Whereas suicide completions annually cause over 200,000

family members to grieve over and mourn a tragic suicide

death for the first time, thus creating a population of

over 4,000,000 such mourners in the United States;

Whereas the suicide completion rate per 100,000 persons has

remained relatively stable over the past 40 years for the

general population, and that rate has nearly tripled for

young persons;

Whereas the suicide rate is rising among African American

young men;

Whereas the suicide completion rate is highest for adults over

65;

Whereas the stigma associated with mental illness works

against suicide prevention by keeping persons at risk of

completing suicide from seeking lifesaving help;
2

•HRES 212 EH

Whereas the stigma associated with suicide deaths seriously

inhibits surviving family members from regaining meaningful lives;

Whereas suicide deaths impose a huge unrecognized and

unmeasured economic burden on the United States in

terms of potential years of life lost, medical costs incurred, and work time lost by mourners;

Whereas suicide is a complex, multifaceted biological, sociological, psychological, and societal problem;

Whereas even though many suicides are currently preventable, there is still a need for the development of more effective suicide prevention programs;

Whereas suicide prevention opportunities continue to increase

due to advances in clinical research, in mental disorder

treatments, and in basic neuroscience, and due to the development of community-based initiatives that await evaluation; and

Whereas suicide prevention efforts should be encouraged to

the maximum extent possible: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) recognizes suicide as a national problem and declares suicide prevention to be a national priority;

(2) acknowledges that no single suicide prevention

program or effort will be appropriate for all populations

or communities;

(3) encourages initiatives dedicated to—

(A) preventing suicide;
3

•HRES 212 EH

(B) responding to people at risk for suicide

and people who have attempted suicide;

(C) promoting safe and effective treatment for

persons at risk for suicidal behavior;

(D) supporting people who have lost someone

to suicide; and

(E) developing an effective national strategy

for the prevention of suicide; and

(4) encourages the development, and the promotion

of accessibility and affordability, of mental health services, to enable all persons at risk for suicide to obtain

the services, without fear of any stigma.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 137 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 137

 Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 1997

 Mr. Barrett of Nebraska submitted the following resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he is hereby, 
elected to the following standing committee of the House of 
Representatives:
    Committee on House Oversight: Mr. Mica.
                                 <all>
```