alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 597 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
H. RES. 597

Expressing the sense of the House with respect to the brutal killing of 
                          Mr. Matthew Shepard.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 14, 1998

   Mrs. Cubin (for herself and Ms. DeGette) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House with respect to the brutal killing of 
                          Mr. Matthew Shepard.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House that--
            (1) Mr. Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old student at the 
        University of Wyoming in Laramie, Wyoming, was physically 
        beaten and tortured, tied to a wooden fence and left for dead;
            (2) Mr. Matthew Shepard died as a result of his injuries on 
        October 12, 1998, in a Colorado hospital surrounded by his 
        loving family and friends; and
            (3) the House--
                    (A) condemns the actions which occurred in Laramie, 
                Wyoming, as unacceptable and outrageous;
                    (B) urges each Member of Congress and every citizen 
                of the United States, in his or her own way, through 
                his or her church, synagogue, mosque, workplace, or 
                social organization, to join in denouncing and 
                encouraging others to denounce this outrageous murder 
                of another human being;
                    (C) pledges to join in efforts to bring an end to 
                such crimes, and to encourage all Americans to dedicate 
                themselves to ending violence in the United States; and
                    (D) pledges to do everything in its power to fight 
                the sort of prejudice and intolerance that leads to the 
                murder of innocent people.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.59

 

 

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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott L. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

|   | (1) | 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

/s/ Scott L. Thompson

Scott L. Thompson

Chief Executive Officer

August 6, 2009

 

 

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and will be retained by Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
As of: 8/17/21 3:57 PM 

Received: August 17, 2021 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. ksg-cm8m-txkf 

Comments Due: August 19, 2021 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: NIST-2021-0004 

Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework 

Comment On: NIST-2021-0004-0001 

Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework 

Document: NIST-2021-0004-DRAFT-0008 

Comment on FR Doc # 2021-1617 6 

Submitter Information 

Email: Tony Samp 

Organization: DLA Piper Global Law Firm 

General Comment 

DLA Piper Global Law Firm is pleased to provide a beta version of its Artificial Intelligence Scorebox in 

response to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's RFI (NIST-2021-0004-0001) to help 

inform the development of a framework for managing risks associated with artificial intelligence. 

DLA Piper built its AI Scorebox as a means to help organizations and businesses assess AI adoption 

readiness and governance maturity based on a series of questions and criteria. DLA Piper's global team

assessed various approaches to AI regulation being developed by governmental organizations including 

the G20, OECD, European Commission, Council of Europe, White House Executive Order 13859 and 

many others. This "common ground" analysis led to the synthesis of key concerns and risks for the 

deployment of complex AI technology use cases in an ethical and legally compliant way.

For all organizations we would suggest the involvement of legal, technical, fmancial, ethics, and senior 

leadership since the deployment of AI is something that needs to be assessed from many perspectives 

within an organization. By utilizing this AI Scorebox, organizations around the world can prepare and 

position themselves in the best way possible for adopting sustainable AI technologies into their business 

models.

We believe our AI Scorebox is consistent with NIST's intent to frame the development of new approaches 

to address characteristics of trustworthiness, including accuracy, reliability, privacy, security and safety. 

To access the beta version ofDLA Piper's AI Scorebox, please use the following address: http://aiscorebox.opencms.co.za/index.html. 

DLA Piper is a global law firm with lawyers located in more than 40 countries throughout the Americas, 

Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific. DLA Piper established its Artificial Intelligence 

practice in May 2019.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CHANGLIN WU, )

)

Defendant. )

Case No. 1:20-CV-4519

Assigned Judge: 

Hon. John Robert Blakey

Designated Magistrate Judge: Hon. 

Heather K. McShain

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii), Plaintiff United States of America and Defendant 

Changlin Wu hereby stipulate to dismiss the above-captioned case with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Bradley A. Sarnell /s/John Nagle (with consent)

BRADLEY A. SARNELL JOHN NAGLE

Trial Attorney, Tax Division Gordon Law Group, Ltd.

U.S. Department of Justice 4709 Golf Rd., Suite 1100

PO Box 55 Skokie, IL 60079

Washington, DC 20044 (847) 305-1230 (p)

(202)307-1038 (v) (847) 305-1202 (f)

(202)514-5238 (f) JohnN@GORDONLAWLTD.COM

Bradley.A.Sarnell@usdoj.gov

Case: 1:20-cv-04519 Document #: 36 Filed: 07/06/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:116
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 28, 2024

NO. 03-24-00076-CV

Rickye Henderson, Appellant

v.

Ali Arabzadegan, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on January 5, 2024. Having reviewed 

the record, the Court holds that Rickye Henderson has not prosecuted his appeal and did not 

comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for 

want of prosecution. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court 

and in the court below.
Face Quality and Analysis Challenge 

Dr. P. Jonathon Phillips 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 
Face Quality 

Low Quality 
Face Quality 

Low Quality High 

Quality 
Face Quality 

Low Quality Medium 

Quality 

High 

Quality 

How do we quantify this level? 
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly 

• Encourage development of “hard” still frontal 

face recognition algorithms 

• Three performance levels 

– Good 

– Bad 

– Ugly 

• Nikon D70-6 Mpixels (SLR) 
Good, Bad, and Ugly Face Pairs 

Good Challenging Very Challenging 
Good Challenging Very Challenging 

Good, Bad, and Ugly Face Pairs 
Good, Bad, Ugly Performance 
Goal: Separate out Ugly Images 
Why is this Hard? 

What is the Quality of these images? 
Quality Comes in Pairs 

Hard to Match 

Easy to Match Easy to Match 

Hard to Match 
Covariate Meta-Analysis 

"A Meta-Analysis of Face Recognition Covariates," Y. Man Lui, D. Bolme, B. A. Draper, J. 

R. Beveridge, G. Givens, P. J. Phillips, In Proceedings, Third IEEE International 

Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications, and Systems, 2009. 

Motivation: 

Make sense of ...

Same year is as good as same week 
What is a Meta-Analysis 

• Covariate = Characterize Performance 

– Gender 

– Age 

– Expression 

– Quality Metric 

• Analyzes performance results from multiple 

studies. 

• Robust to changes in: 

– Data set 

– Algorithms 

– Environment / image conditions 

– Demographics 

– Sensors 
Who is easier to recognize? 

Young ...

Older people are easier to recognize 
Resolution 

Best resolution varies 

over time. 
Expression 

Neutral to Neutral 

Neutral to Smiling 

Smiling to Smiling 

Smiling to Neutral 

Have a consistent expression. 
Summary of Findings 

AGE: 

 Older people are easier to recognize. 

(9 Studies) 

TIME BETWEEN IMAGES: 

 Recognition degrades with time 

between images. (8 Studies) 

GENDER: 

 Murky outcome, modest and 

depends upon study, algorithm, 

setting, etc. (8 Studies) 

EXPRESSION: 

Same expression better, 

Otherwise smile/neutral same. (4 

Studies) 

RESOLUTION: 

Older algorithms don’t care. Newer 

algorithms like more pixels. (10 

Studies) 

RACE: 

 East Asians easier, BUT, this may be 

because fewer East Asians in data 

sets. (6 Studies) 

QUALITY MEASURES: 

Currently no replicated results 
Face Quality Analysis Challenge 

Low Quality Medium 

Quality 

Strategy One: 

Clearly tagging low quality 

images 

Strategy Two: 

Characterizing “medium” 

quality images 
Proposed NIST Face Activities 

2 

0 

1 

2 

• Face Quality Analysis 

Challenge 

• Video Challenge 
Thank you
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-43,677-04

IN RE BILLY DONNELL BUCKLEY, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. W88-82855 IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that

the application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Dallas

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Dallas County. Should the

response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was

served with the habeas application and that the 180-day time frame set out in TEX. R. APP. P.

73.4(b)(5) has not expired shall also be submitted with the response. This application for leave to

file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the appropriate

response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: January 16, 2019

Do not publish
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 395 Agreed to House (ATH)]

  2d Session
H. RES. 395

 Expressing the condolences of the House on the death of the Honorable 
     Steven Schiff, a Representative from the State of New Mexico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 1998

Mr. Skeen submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the condolences of the House on the death of the Honorable 
     Steven Schiff, a Representative from the State of New Mexico.

    Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the 
death of the Honorable Steven Schiff, a Representative from the State 
of New Mexico.
    Resolved, That a committee of such Members of the House as the 
Speaker may designate, together with such Members of the Senate as may 
be joined, be appointed to attend the funeral.
    Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms of the House be authorized and 
directed to take such steps as may be necessary for carrying out the 
provisions of these resolutions and that the necessary expenses in 
connection therewith be paid out of the contingent fund of the House.
    Resolved, That the Clerk of the House communicate these resolutions 
to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the 
deceased.
    Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a 
further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.2



















_________, __ , 200_




[Name]

[Address]







Dear M_. [_________]:




In connection with your [_____] grant of shares of Legg Mason, Inc. common stock, enclosed please find a Prospectus for the Legg Mason Inc. Non-Employee Director Equity Plan, which includes a copy of the Plan as an exhibit, [the $50,000 that you elected to receive as part of the grant] and the related fractional share distribution.  Your common stock will be credited to your brokerage account as soon as is practicable.




The number of shares of common stock granted was determined by dividing $[125,000] [75,000] by the average price as specified below:




	 	_/__/0_ High

	 	$______


	 	_/__/0_ Low

	 	$______


	 	Average

	 	$______


	 	# of Shares Calculated

	 	             


	 	Cash payment in lieu of fractional shares

	$______







A current statement of your outstanding Legg Mason Stock Options is also included in this package.




If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (410) 539-0000.




Regards,










Kendra P. Heyde

Vice President & Director, Compensation
#### C. J. Seldon *v.*Thomas W. Bullitt, etc.

Clerks of Courts — Copying Record Fees — Record Confused.

Where a record is much confused by the interlineation of the orders out of their proper place, and without any regard to the order in which the proceedings were had, the clerk is not entitled to charge any fee therefor.

*130APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY CIRCUIT COURT.

February 17, 1872.

*L. A. Wood, for appellant.*

*Bullitt & Bullitt, Harris, Ward, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor.:

It is evident from the facts in this record that the appellee Bullitt should not be compelled to pay this debt twice to Mrs. Maguire or her assignees. The parties at his instance were •compelled to interplead in order to determine their respective rights to' the monies in his hands. Seldon and McDonald both assert their right to this judgment, or its amount in the hands of Bullitt. Bullitt is ready to pay the money to either one of the parties.

McDonald is not precluded from asserting his right to the judgment as he was no party to the suit instituted by Seldon. This is not a suit by Bullitt to vacate the judgment, but is in fact a suit by McDonald against Seldon claiming the amount of the judgment against Bullitt.

■ It is true that McDonald and Seldon get into court upon Bullitt’s cross-petition filed after judgment, but after they are brought into court the controversy is really between .them. The chancellor had jurisdiction to determine the rights of these parties to the money in Bullitt’s hands. He has adjudged that it belongs to McDonald for the reason that Seldon, after his right to the money in Bullitt’s hands, had tacitly consented to the transfer, of this very money or the right to it to McDonald. Although the judgment had been rendered against Bullitt, there was nothing to prevent McDonald from asserting claim to it by reason of the assignment to him by Mrs. Naygin, and as the rights of McDonald and Seldon have been settled by a court having jurisdiction certainly as between these parties, McDonald and Seldon, we are not disposed to disturb the judgment. The judgment of the court below is affirmed. The record in this case is so much confused by the interlining of orders out of their proper place and without any regard to the order in which the proceedings were had that the clerk below is directed not to take any fee against either party for the services rendered by him in making the same out.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

JOSHUA WRIGHT,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-1928

LT Case No. 2016-CF-10248-A-O

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed October 14, 2022

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County,

Renee A. Roche, Judge.

Joshua Wright, Bowling Green, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

This Court previously affirmed the trial court’s order denying 

Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief in Orange County Circuit Court 

Case Number 2016-CF-10248-A-O. Because it appears that Appellant’s 

postconviction filings are abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous, 

Appellant is cautioned that any further pro se filings in this Court asserting 
2

claims stemming from Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 2016-CF10248-A-O may result in sanctions such as a bar on pro se filing in this Court 

and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings, which may include 

forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2019); State v. Spencer, 

751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999).

APPELLANT CAUTIONED.

SASSO, TRAVER and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

ILLINOIS

ART ASK AGENCY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:20-cv-04518

)

UUMM, et al. )

)

Defendants. ) Hon. John J Tharp, Jr.

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER

OR OTHERWISE PLEAD

COMES NOW Defendant UUMM, by and through counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 6(b) respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time to answer or 

otherwise plead, showing the Court as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed its Complaint on August 3, 2020. [ECF No. 1]

2. The Court’s docket indicates that responsive pleadings were due September 15, 2020. 

[ECF No. 25]

3. Plaintiff filed a motion for default on November 12, 2020. [ECF No. 37]

4. As of December 4, 2020, Plaintiff’s motion for default has not yet been granted. 

5. The undersigned counsel was retained early on the morning of December 4, 2020. 

She immediately contacted Michael Hierl, counsel for Plaintiff, via email and 

requested an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead to permit the parties a 

period of time to explore the possibility of settlement. Attorney Hierl responded and 

indicated that he had no objection. 

6. There is no intention by Defendant in filing this motion for extension to negatively 

Case: 1:20-cv-04518 Document #: 46 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2053
affect the entry of default against any other non-moving Defendants in this case. The 

relief sought in this motion is limited to Defendant UUMM alone. 

7. Defendant respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order granting this motion 

and extending the deadline for it to answer or otherwise plead through December 18, 

2020, to permit the parties to determine whether settlement is possible, or whether 

UUMM will file a responsive pleading by that date.

8. This extension of time is not being sought for the purpose of delay or frustration of 

the progress of this matter.

9. This extension will not unduly burden Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Defendant UUMM respectfully requests that this Court grant its

Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Plead and Ordering

Defendant UUMM to answer or otherwise plead by December 14, 2020. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Erin K. Russell

The Russell Firm, LLC 

833 W. Chicago Avenue, Suite 508

Chicago, IL 60642

T: 312-994-2424

F: 312-706-9766

erin@russellfirmip.com

CERTIFICATE OF 

SERVICE

This is to certify that on December 4, 2020, this document was filed with the Court 

via the CM/ECF electronic filing system, thereby serving it upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Erin K. Russell

Case: 1:20-cv-04518 Document #: 46 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2054
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1. | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/              Donna Goral                                                 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Donna                GoralChairman                of the Board and President |

| Date: | November                13, 2007 |
|-------|----------------------------------|

----