alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen.Moriarty@cisecurity.org>

Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:08 PM

To: EO-pilots

Subject: IoT Document feedback

High-level comment: Please consider including the CIS Critical 

Security Controls for Internet of 

Things as a resource. Controls Version 8 is largely aligned to the 

recommendations provided in 

this NIST specification, however the controls are more prescriptive 

and prioritized according to 

current threats. This may serve as a resource as a result due to the 

alignment and 

complementary aspects of the documents. https://www.cisecurity.org/

white-papers/internet-ofthings-security-companion-to-the-cis-critical-security-controls/ 

Specific comments for consideration:

Asset Identification: Asset inventory is the baseline for any security 

control management 

framework and is important. Challenges may be presented as a result of 

privacy efforts in 

standard development organizations (SDOs), where anonymization has 

been built-in to product 

identifiers. Efforts might include the IEEE randomization of MAC 

addresses that has been 

standardized. There may be privacy laws that limit tracking 

requirements to an organization with 

employee agreements for instance.

Logical Access to the Interfaces: The controls largely align to NIST 

SP 800-207. Would a 

reference be useful to the ZTA tenets?

Software Update: Will there be any requirement for a software manifest 

that is digitally signed? 

Best regards,

Kathleen

Kathleen M. Moriarty

Chief Technology Officer

Center for Internet Security

+1 (518) 516-3064

www.cisecurity.org

Follow us @CISecurity
This message and attachments may contain confidential information. If 

it appears that this message was 

sent to you by mistake, any retention, dissemination, distribution or 

copying of this message and 

attachments is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender 

immediately and permanently delete the 

message and any attachments. 

. . . . .
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7528

ANDRE P. TOWNSEND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PHILLIP MCLEOD, Warden; BETTY ROBINSON, ADA

Coordinator; GAIL FRICKS, Deputy Director of

Health Services; AMY ENLOE, Nurse

Practitioner; LOREN HUDSON, Registered Nurse;

CHRISTIE MARLER; JESSIE TIPPINS, Licensed

Practical Nurses; FLORENCE MAUNEY,

Disciplinary Hearing Officer; VERNON MILLER,

Lieutenant; MICHAEL NAJJAR, Lieutenant;

JACQUELLA HOLSINGER, Lieutenant; DANIEL

MARTIN, Correctional Officer; WESLEY

BANNISTER, Correctional Officer; NOEL MORGAN,

Correctional Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-02-722-0-23)

Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 7, 2003

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andre P. Townsend, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt,

MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Townsend asserts on appeal that he did not receive the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. However, the record

discloses that it was mailed to him at the appropriate address.

3

PER CURIAM:

Andre P. Townsend seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that

relief be denied and advised Townsend that failure to file timely

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of

a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this

warning, Townsend failed to object to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation.*

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Townsend has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Townsend’s motion

for appointment of counsel.
4

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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      I, Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, President and
Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the "Registrant"),
certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the annual
report on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 2005
of the Registrant (the "Report"):

            (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

            (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Registrant.

             By:  /s/ Edwin C. Quattlebaum
                  ------------------------

                                          Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D.
                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRESIDENT AND CO-CHAIRMAN OF
                                               THE BOARD OF
                                               DIRECTORS OF
                                             METAMORPHIX, INC.

Date: December 15, 2006
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elder, B eales and RetiredJudge Hodges ∗

RICHARD EDWIN BROWN MEMORANDUM OPINION ** v. Record No. 1324-09-4 PER CURIAM OCTOBER 6, 2009 KOONS FORD BODY SHOP AND PENN NATIONAL SECU RITY INSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

(Julie H. Heiden; Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lightfoot, on brief), for appellant.

(Bryan M. Kirchner; Angela F. Gibbs; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for appellees.

Richard E. Brown appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding

that his injury did not arise out of his employment. We have reviewed the record and the

commission’s opinion and fi nd that this appeal is without meri t. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Brown v. Koons Ford Body Shop

, VWC File No. 238-14-03 (June 3, 2009). We dispen se with oral argument and summarily affirm

because the facts and legal contentions are adequate ly presented in the materials before the Court

and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

∗ Retired Judge William H. Hodges considered this case by designation pursuant to Code § 17.1-400(D).

** Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designa ted for publication.
H. Res. 517

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

August 6, 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. 4380) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of said District for

the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to

comply with clause 7 of rule XXI or section 306 or 401(a)

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. 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 Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order

against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause
2

•HRES 517 EH

2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: page 41, line

20, through page 42, line 2. Each of the amendments printed

in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this

resolution may be offered only by a Member designated in the

report, may be offered only at the appropriate point in the

reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and

controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be

subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand

for division of the question in the House or in the Committee

of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments

printed in the report are waived. 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 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 ques-
3

•HRES 517 EH

tions shall be 15 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.
EXHIBIT 31.1

AMERICAN PATRIOT FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.  CERTIFICATIONPRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I,
Jerry A. Simmerly, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American Patriot Financial Group, Inc.

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

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

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and we have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officers 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|Date March 31, 2008 |  | Signature: |  | /s/JERRY A. SIMMERLY
|------------------- |  | ---------- |  | --------------------
|                    |  |            |  |                     

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7735

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ISAAC NELSON, a/k/a Big Ike, a/k/a Zeek,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00930-CMC-3)

Submitted: April 27, 2021 Decided: April 30, 2021

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Nelson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Isaac Nelson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate 

release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse 

of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, ___F.3d___, 2021 WL 1216543 (4th Cir. 2021). 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Nelson, 

No. 3:09-cr-00930-CMC-3 (D.S.C. Nov. 9, 2020). 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

Case Number: Assigned/Issued By: 

Judge Name: Designated Magistrate Judge: 

FEE INFORMATION

Amount Due: $402.00 $49.00 $5.00

IFP No Fee Other 

$505.00 

Number of Service Copies Date: 

(For Use by Fiscal Department Only) 

Amount Paid: Receipt #: 

Date Payment Rec’d: Fiscal Clerk: 

ISSUANCES

Summons Alias Summons

Third Party Summons Lis Pendens 

Non Wage Garnishment Summons Abstract of Judgment 

Wage-Deduction Garnishment Summons 

Citation to Discover Assets 

Writ 

(Type of Writ) 

(Victim, Against and $ Amount) 

Original and copies on as to 

(Date) 

Rev. 08/19/2016

Case: 1:20-cv-03720 Document #: 79 Filed: 02/01/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3007
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3830 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3830

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide reasonable standards 
         for congressional gold medals, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2004

  Mr. Castle introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide reasonable standards 
         for congressional gold medals, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Gold Medal Enhancement 
Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. REASONABLE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED FOR CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 5111 of title 31, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Congressional Gold Medal Standards.--
            ``(1) Maximum number.--During any calendar year beginning 
        after December 31, 2004, the Secretary of the Treasury may 
        strike not more than 2 congressional gold medals for 
        presentation pursuant to an Act of the Congress.
            ``(2) Program requirements.--The Secretary may strike 
        congressional gold medals only in accordance with the following 
        requirements:
                    ``(A) Recipients.--Only an individual may be a 
                recipient of a congressional gold medal.
                    ``(B) Timing.--No gold medal may be presented 
                posthumously on behalf of any individual except during 
                the 20-year period beginning 5 years after the death of 
                the individual (unless the Act of Congress authorizing 
                the striking of such medal was enacted before the death 
                of such individual).''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67531-67532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26800]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Memorandum of Agreement for Replacing the Griffin--
Spalding County Airport (6A2), Griffin, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Memorandum of Agreement.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for 
replacing the Griffin--Spalding County

[[Page 67532]]

Airport (6A2), in Griffin, Georgia with the City of Griffin, Spalding 
County, and the Griffin-Spalding County Airport Authority. This 
Agreement sets forth the parties' obligations and commitments with 
regard to planning and constructing a replacement airport.

DATES: December 15, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry F. Clark, Manager, Federal 
Aviation Administration, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 
Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2-260, College Park, GA 30337.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 28, 2014, the City of Griffin and 
Spalding County, herein referred to as the Sponsor, and the Griffin-
Spalding County Airport Authority entered into a Memorandum of 
Agreement (Agreement) with the FAA for replacing the Griffin-Spalding 
County Airport (6A2) in Griffin, Georgia. This Agreement sets forth the 
parties' obligations and commitments with regard to planning and 
constructing a replacement airport and outlines the process the parties 
will undertake to decommission 6A2 in the future. Prior to 
decommissioning 6A2, the FAA will provide notice and an opportunity for 
public comment as required by 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).
    On September 26, 2014, the Federal Aviation Administration added 
the proposed Griffin-Spalding County Replacement Airport to its 
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. The runway length and 
airport design at the existing airport are insufficient to support 
aviation needs. The sponsor evaluated all reasonable and practicable 
alternatives to address these constraints and proposed construction of 
the replacement airport to the FAA. The FAA issued a Finding of No 
Significant Impact/Record of Decision for the proposed replacement 
airport on March 12, 2013.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the Agreement in person at 
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect 
the Agreement, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be 
related to the Agreement in person at the Griffin-Spalding County 
Airport, 1035 Hill Street, Griffin, GA 30224.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 5, 2014.
Larry F. Clark,
Manager, FAA Atlanta Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-26800 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION FURNISHEDPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Pliant Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph J.Kwederis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ Joseph J. Kwederis     |
|--------|----------------------------|
|   | Joseph J.  Kwederis        |
|   | *Chief  Financial Officer* |
|   | * *                   |
|   | November 14,  2006         |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03952

Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC, hereby files this Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal as to any remaining Defendants that have not been subject to a prior Order entered by 

the Court, including any consent judgment order, final judgment order, or a prior dismissal entered 

by the Court. All such Defendants are hereby dismissed without prejudice. 

This terminates the action.

DATED: October 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt (Bar No. 6207971)

Keith Vogt, Ltd.

111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: 312-675-6079

E-mail: keith@vogtip.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case: 1:20-cv-03952 Document #: 47 Filed: 10/15/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:9416
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document was electronically filed on October 15, 2020 with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system, which will automatically send an email notification of such filing to all registered 

attorneys of record.

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt

Case: 1:20-cv-03952 Document #: 47 Filed: 10/15/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:9417