alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### L. H. Rosseau *v.*E. S. Falkener, etc.

Partnership — Agreement to Contribute Equal Amount to Capital Stock.

*By the*terms of the partnership each partner was to contribute equally to the capital stock. Appellant paid in more than any of the others. He was entitled to interest on that amount upon, settlement of the partnership.

APPEAL FROM RUSSELL CIRCUIT COURT.

October 30, 1871.

*James, for appellant.*

*Drone, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The Commissioner in his report made on the 21st of May, 1868, shows that the appellant had paid in as capital stock in the Mill adventure, the sum of $2,244.90. This report seems to be correct in determining the amount of money paid in as stock by each one of the partners: The court below in the judgment rendered, only credits appellant for capital stock by the sum of $2,042.61, making an error as against appellant for $202.33. By the terms of the partnership each partner was to contribute equally to the capital stock — that is, each partner was to pay in equal amounts. The appellant paid in some $680 more money than the other partners and on this amount should have been allowed interest. For these errors only the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 931

To provide an exception to the restrictions on eligibility for public benefits

for certain legal aliens.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 5, 1997

Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Ms. LOFGREN, and Ms. ESHOO) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide an exception to the restrictions on eligibility for

public benefits for certain legal aliens.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO ELIGIBILITY RESTRICTIONS

4 FOR PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN LEGAL

5 ALIENS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle A of title V of the Illegal

7 Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of

8 1996 (Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–1772) is

9 amended by adding at the end the following:
2

•HR 931 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 511. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN LEGAL ALIENS.

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other pro3 vision of law, an alien who was lawfully present in the

4 United States on August 22, 1996, and who lawfully re5 sides in a State, is age 65 or older, is disabled and/or

6 blind, as determined under paragraph (2) and/or (3) of

7 section 1614(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

8 1382c(a)), whose family is incapable of support, and who

9 can demonstrate that he or she has no other sufficient

10 means of support other than that provided under the pro11 gram described in subsection (b), shall be eligible to re12 ceive benefits under such program.

13 ‘‘(b) PROGRAM DESCRIBED.—The program described

14 in this subsection is the program described in section

15 402(a)(3)(A) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Op16 portunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.

17 1612(a)(3)(A)).’’.

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

19 subsection (a) takes effect as if included in the enactment

20 of subtitle A of title V of the Illegal Immigration Reform

21 and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law

22 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–1772).

23 (c) NOTICE AND REDETERMINATION.—The Commis24 sioner of Social Security shall, not later than 30 days after
3

•HR 931 IH

1 the date of enactment of this Act, notify an individual de2 scribed in section 511(a) of the Illegal Immigration Re3 form and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (as added

4 by this Act) and who, as of such date, has been redeter5 mined to be ineligible for the program described in section

6 511(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

7 Responsibility Act of 1996 (as so added), that the individ8 ual’s eligibility for such program shall be redetermined

9 again, and shall conduct such redetermination in a timely

10 manner.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
    Cole Credit Property Trust, Inc.By:
    
    /s/ Christopher H. ColeName:
    
    Christopher H. ColeTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer,
President, and 
Director
(Principal Executive
Officer)By:
    
    /s/ D. Kirk McAllaster, Jr.Name:
    
    D. Kirk McAllaster, Jr.Date: March 30, 2011
    
    Title:
    
    Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial 
Officer,
and Director (Principal
Financial Officer)
#### Mt. Sterling & Spencer Turnpike Road Company *v.*W. B. Slocum.

Contracts — Building Turnpike — Work Incomplete — Estimate.

When appellee gave up Ms contract the Turnpike Company agreed to pay him the contract price for the work done and the estimate was to be made by the appellant’s engineer.

Held: That it was the duty of the company to ascertain the amount due appellee before involving him in litigation.

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT,

February 18, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The circuit court did not err 'to appellant’s prejudice in striking from the case so much of the answer as seeks to make Gibbons a party to this litigation.

It is manifest that when Slocum gave up his contract the Turnpike Company undertook and agreed to pay him for so much work as he had1 then done, at the contract rate. The estimate of the amount of such work was to be made by the company’s own engineer; it was, therefore, 'the duty of the appellant 'to ascertain the amount due to appellee, and it had no light to involve him in litigation with Gibbons in order to have determined a matter of fact which the company had agreed to have settled 'by one of its own officers.

It is not denied that the amount for which judgment was rendered in favor of Slocum was due from the company, and there is no evidence tending to show that Gibbons had any claim upon such amount.

*110
      *Turner, Brock, R. Reid, for appellant.*

*Apperson, for appellee.*

The bill of exceptions does not show what appellant expected to prove by either one of the rejected witnesses. It is, therefore, unnecessary to discuss their competency.

We perceive no error in the proceedings in the court below which will authorize a reversal.

Judgment affirmed. Gibbons having no interest in the matters involved in this controversy his appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 24.1POWER OF ATTORNEYWHEREAS, AMH Holdings,LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation (the “Company”), proposes tofile with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the provisions of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2007;andWHEREAS, the undersigned is a Director;NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Cynthia L. Sobe as attorney for andin the name, place and stead of the undersigned, and in the capacity of the undersigned as aDirector, to execute and file such Form 10-K and any amendments or supplements thereto, herebygiving and granting to said attorney, full power and authority to do and perform each and every actand thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully, to allintents and purposes, as the undersigned might or could do if personally present at the doingthereof, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney may or shall lawfully do, or causeto be done, by virtue hereof.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney this 14th day of March,2008.     By: /s/ Kevin M. Hayes Kevin M. Hayes    Director       By: /s/ Ira D. Kleinman Ira D. Kleinman    Director       By: /s/ Thomas Sullivan Thomas Sullivan    Director       By: /s/ Dana R. Snyder Dana R. Snyder    Director       By: /s/ Kevin C. Nickelberry Kevin C. Nickelberry    Director       By: /s/ Dennis W. Vollmershausen Dennis W. Vollmershausen    Director
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7340

LELMON JACKSON TERRELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GERALDINE MIRO, Warden; ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; CHARLES CONDON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-3408-6-10AK) Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 23, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lelmon Jackson Terrell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lelmon Jackson Terrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Terrell v. Miro , No. CA-97-3408-6-10AK (D.S.C. Aug. 19, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with Annual Report of Kid Castle
      Educational Corporation, a Florida Corporation (the “Registrant”), on Form 10-Q
      for the fiscal period ending June 30, 2007 filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission , the undersigned hereby certifies that:





1.
      To the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements
      of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
      To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Registrant.








Date: August
              15, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Min
              Tan YangMIN
              TAN YANGCHIEF
              EXECUTIVE OFFICER






Date: August
              15, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Suang-Yi
              PaiSUANG-YI
              PAICHIEF
              FINANCIAL OFFICER
Building-NIST-AI-Risk-Management-Framework-workshop-3 

AI POISONING ATTACKS AND COUNTERMEASURES 

I would like to recommend more discussion on mechanisms for AI poisoning attacks and countermeasures. 

The discussion should focus on mechanisms for AI poisoning attacks methods and countermeasures such as 

Tactics Techniques and Procedure (TTP) and Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability (CIA) approaches. 

Here is an example 

AI poisoning attacks focus on the manipulation of the data collected and stored by devices or nodes in the 

perception layer of the system. The threat model of poisoning attacks is related to the attacker's knowledge, the 

attacker's goal, the attacker's strategy of the ML model, and the attacker's ability to influence the training data. 

Threat model (CIA) approach 

Threat modeling ensures the identification and quantification of possible security threats and vulnerabilities in 

intelligent networking systems. 

Here is another example 

TTP development for Attacker's knowledge technique should be considered to address Perfect-knowledge, 

Limited-knowledge and Zero-knowledge. 

System and information integrity policy; configuration management policy and TTP’s addressing AI poisoning 

attacks protection should be implemented, (see examples below). 

Attacker's knowledge (vulnerability) 

Considering the knowledge of the classifier components, the attacker's knowledge can be categorized into 

different levels. 

AI poisoning attack vectors (vulnerability) 

● Perfect-knowledge: corresponding to white-box attacks, where the attacker fully knows the target system, 

including the training data, the feature representation set, the learning algorithm, and the training parameters. 

This kind of knowledge allows attackers to provide the worst-case scenario of the target system. 

Attacker's knowledge (vulnerability) 

● Limited-knowledge: corresponding to gray-box attacks, it is assumed that the attacker has limited knowledge 

of the target system, including a surrogate training data sampled from a similar distribution, the feature 

representation set, the learning algorithm, and parameters trained by a surrogate classifier. This setting allows 

attackers to simulate a more realistic scenario of the target system. 

Attacker's knowledge (TTP) (CIA) 

● Zero-knowledge: corresponding to black-box attacks, where the attacker has little knowledge of the target 

system and can only query the target system and obtain their corresponding posteriors. Compared to the whitebox and gray-box settings, the black-box setting is more challenging for the attacker. 

Sincerely, 

Reginald K. Richardson, President/CEO 

Sapphire Innovative Solutions Inc. dba Sapphire BLU
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

 

I, Thomas A.Frederick, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of Eagle Hospitality Properties Trust, Inc.; 

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, 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 quarterly report is beingprepared; 

 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness ofthe Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) disclosed in this report any change inthe Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

5. TheRegistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of Registrant’s Board of Directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

(b) anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 28, 2005
-- 

From: Jeroen Franse 

To: aiframework 

Subject: Comments in response to RFI - AI Risk Management Framework 

Date: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 9:25:02 AM 

Attachments: image.png 

RFI - Comments by FBPML - NIST Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework.pdf 

FBPML_OrganisationBP_V1.0.pdf 

FBPML_TechnicalBP_V1.0.pdf 

Dear NIST, 

With this email I would like to submit comments to the RFI call regarding the "AI Risk 

Management Framework" on behalf of our organisation (the Foundation for Best Practices in 

Machine Learning). 

Attached are a document containing our comments and 2 documents as supporting reference 

material. 

Best regards, 

dr. Jeroen Franse 

Chairperson | The Foundation for Best Practices in Machine Learning 

FBPML.org | LinkedIn 

KVK nummer: 82610363
#### R. H. Lansdale *v.*F. B. Webb, &c.

Appeals and Errors — Rule to Pay Money Into Court Made Absolute— Final Order.

Where a rule against a party to pay money into court is made absolute and an attachment issued thereon, is a final order in the case and may be appealed from.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

October 30, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Upon the filing of the mandate of this court in September, 1853, it was made the duty of the chancellor to ascertain whether or not the purchaser at the decretal sale had received possession of the ferry under his purchase, and if so to require him to pay a reasonable rent for it during the time it was in his possession, before rendering a judgment setting aside the commissioner’s sale, and canceling the purchaser’s bonds.

For this purpose the cause was referred to the commissioner of the Chancery Court.

On the 17th of March, 1854, the commissioner filed his report, in which he fixed the rents of the ferry, with accrued interest thereon, at the sum of $2,492.42. To this report appellant Lansdale filed exceptions on the 5th of May. The said report was approved and confirmed. On the 19th of May, 1854, on motion of C. D. Shean, the cause was again referred to the commissioner. June 30th, the commissioner filed a second report to the effect that no additional facts had been developed. On the 11th of June, 1858, appellant Lansdale was ordered to pay into court the amount reported by the commissioner as due from him on or before the 25th of that month or to show cause to the *612contrary. From this order he prayed an appeal to this court, which seems never to have been prosecuted.

*Thompson, A. H. Field, for appellant.*

*Pirtle & Caruth, for appellee.*

On the 25th of June the rule against Lansdale was made absolute, and an attachment ordered to issue against him.

This was certainly a final order in the matter. It -fixed the rights of the parties and the liability of Lansdale. It has never been modified, vacated, annulled or reversed.

The subsequent proceedings in the cause have been upon orders of attachment issued for the purpose of enforcing this order, and the only error that we can perceive in the record is that Lansdale has been permitted by the leniency of the chancellor to escape, for thirteen years, the payment of the amount for which he was adjudged liable.

The order from which this appeal is prosecuted is nothing more than an order enforcing a former judgment of the chancellor, and it is therefore necessarily correct. The plea of limitation was not available. No objection was taken to the action of the special chancellor in the court below. It does not appear that appellant objected to his making orders in the cause without being sworn. The objections now urged can not be raised in this court for the first time.

We can not upon this appeal inquire into the merits of the judgment rendered in 1858.

Judgment *affirmed.*
Exhibit 31
                                  ----------


                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------


          I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

          1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports
          on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in
          respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
          report, of CWMBS, Inc., CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2004-J4;

          2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as
          a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

          3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the trustee by the master servicer under
          the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in
          these reports is included in these reports;

          4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          master servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar,
          agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
          review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
          reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
          that agreement; and

          5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
          master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards
          based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
          after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single
          Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as
          set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that
          is included in these reports.

          In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
          information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
          The Bank of New York, as Trustee, BankUnited, FSB, HSBC Mortgage
          Corporation (USA), National City Mortgage Company and Wachovia
          Mortgage Corporation.


          Date: March 28, 2005


                                                  /s/ Steve Bailey
                                                  ----------------
                                                  Steve Bailey
                                                  Senior Managing Director