alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Karapet SHIMSHIRYAN, Claimant-Appellant, and One 1998 Tractor, VIN1XKTDB9XXW17579; One Tractor Trailer, VIN1UYUS248XVU1614, Defendants.

No. 04-1005.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 29, 2004.

Decided Dec. 7, 2004.

*864Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Karapet Shimshiryan appeals the district court’s order forfeiting his interest in the tractor portion of a tractor-trailer vehicle to the Government. Because we conclude that the forfeiture is not grossly disproportional to Shimshiryan’s crime, we affirm.

Shimshiryan does not contest that the tractor was an instrumentality of his possession and transport of contraband cigarettes and is therefore forfeitable, but argues that forfeiture of the tractor is excessive under the Eighth Amendment. He asserts that his crime is similar to the currency reporting offense committed by the defendant in *United States v. Bajakajian,*524 U.S. 321, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998), and that the forfeiture of his tractor is similarly unconstitutional. We review a district court’s determination that a forfeiture is not excessive under the Eighth Amendment de novo. *Bajakajian,*524 U.S. at 336-37. To determine if a forfeiture is excessive, we “compare the forfeiture to the gravity of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(g)(2) (2000). If the amount of the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense, it is unconstitutional. *Bajakajian,*524 U.S. at 333. The party challenging the forfeiture bears the burden of demonstrating that it is excessive. *United States v. Ahmad,*213 F.3d 805, 813 (4th Cir.2000); 18 U.S.C. § 983(g)(3) (2000).

We have conducted the required de novo review of the evidence before the district court and conclude that the district court correctly found that forfeiture of the tractor was not grossly disproportional to Shimshiryan’s crime. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001049510
<NAME> ACME TELEVISION, LLC
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,973
<ALLOWANCES>                                       333
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,027
<PP&E>                                          12,739
<DEPRECIATION>                                     589
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 241,136
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,011
<BONDS>                                        134,296
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   241,136
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,757
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,388
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,652
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,238)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,258)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,258)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of the registrant certify, to the best of their knowledge, that the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-QSB") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.  Date: May 21, 2010  Avani International Group, Inc.  /s/Dennis Robinson Dennis Robinson President, and Principal Executive Officer   /s/Dennis Robinson Dennis Robinson Principal Financial Officer
Secure Biometric Templates Wiki

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-secbiotemp/

*not necessarily final URL
Purpose

provide a means and discussion 

forum for researchers, students, 

developers, policy makers, citizens, 

and interested persons to promote, 

understand, and critique secure 

biometric template technology. 
Purpose

• Promote a more unified self-categorization of 

various techniques

– Salting

– Non-invertible transform

– Key-binding

– Key-generating

• Each researcher would post their technique, 

with respect to these categories
Top Level Organization

• Categories

• Bibliography

• Tutorial

• List of techniques
Technique Listing

• Title/name of technique

• Brief description

• Bibliography of technique

• Technique Criticism & Crypto ‘Attacks’

• Proposed evaluation methodology

• Critique of proposed evaluation methodology
#### BARKER v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO.

No. 266.

United States District Court E. D. Kentucky, Catlettsburg Division.

Nov. 7, 1951.

*1023Dysard & Dysard, Ashland, Ky., Ora Duvall, Olive Hill, Ky., for plaintiff.

Ogden, Galphin & Abell, Louisville, Ky., H. R. Wilhoit, Grayson, Ky., for defendant.

SWINFORD, District Judge.

This case is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion to remand.

The record discloses that the plaintiff was the owner of a policy of insurance by which the defendant agreed among other tilings to pay for loss by fire of three motor vehicles which were on July 8, 1950, allegedly completely destroyed by fire.

The plaintiff instituted separate actions for each of the automobiles in the state court. Each of the actions was for less than $3,000. The defendant sought by plea in abatement, under Section 118 of the Kentucky Code of Practice in Civil Cases to have two of the actions dismissed since another action was pending in this state between the same parties for the same cause.

Without ruling upon the plea the state court entered an order, on its own motion, that all three of the cases, “are hereby consolidated for the purpose of being tried together; and henceforth said three causes shall be carried together upon the docket of this court,” under one title. Thus consolidated the amount in controversy became the aggregate of the three claims, or $5,-500. The defendant then filed its petition for removal to this court.

The motion to remand is based on the proposition that since none of the cases in the state court involved an amount in excess of $3,000 this court is without jurisdiction.

With this position I cannot agree. The sum of $5,500 is the amount claimed in the consolidated causes under one title. The claims for the loss were under one contract on facts growing out of one incident. The pleas in abatement were well taken and the order of consolidation was an expedient to save the plaintiff’s causes of action. The two actions filed subsequently to the original action were in reality treated as amended petitions to the original action.

Under modem practices the filing of three separate claims growing out of one set of facts under circumstances disclosed by the record here could not be permitted in any court.

The plaintiff must lose his motion on all counts. There were no separate claims on which separate actions could be based without admitting the plea of res adjudicata on subsequent claims.

The order of consolidation set up the amount in controversy. National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., D.C., 4 F.Supp. 25.

The plaintiff’s motion to remand should be overruled. An order to that effect is this day entered.
{"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":"Chris Mouring","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XMxD9Vlzia\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/chris-mouring\/\">Chris Mouring<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/chris-mouring\/embed\/#?secret=XMxD9Vlzia\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Chris Mouring” — NASA\" data-secret=\"XMxD9Vlzia\" 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\/chris-mouring-2020-300.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 563 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 262
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 563

                          [Report No. 105-761]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 4104) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the 
 United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, 
and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 
                   30, 1999, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 1998

   Mr. McInnis, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 4104) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the 
 United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, 
and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 
                   30, 1999, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
4104) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United 
States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and 
certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1999, and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration are waived. The 
conference report shall be considered as read.
                                     





                                                 House Calendar No. 262

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 563

                          [Report No. 105-761]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 4104) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the 
 United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, 
and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 
                   30, 1999, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 1, 1998

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEBRUARY 18, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14865

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00212-CR-ORL-31-KRS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

ALEEM HUSSAIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(February 18, 2009)

Before CARNES, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ellis Rexwood Curry, IV, appointed counsel for Aleem Hussain in this
direct criminal and sentencing appeal, has moved to withdraw from further

representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Because independent

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Hussain’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LUCAS REGAN, individually and on behalf

of himself and all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PINGER, INC., a Delaware corporation,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: 20-cv-00486

Hon. Edmond E. Change

Judge Presiding

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Lucas Regan, through his attorneys, hereby voluntarily dismisses this action,

without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).

Dated: February 19, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

LUCAS REGAN, individually and on

behalf of all other similarly situated,

By: /s/ Gregg M. Barbakoff

Keith J. Keogh

Gregg M. Barbakoff

KEOGH LAW, LTD.

55 W. Monroe St, Suite 3390

Chicago, IL 60603

Tel.: (312) 726-1092

Fax: (312) 726-1093

keith@keoghlaw.com

gbarbakoff@keoghlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed

Putative Class

Case: 1:20-cv-00486 Document #: 18 Filed: 02/19/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:65
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, hereby certify that on February 19, 2020, I filed the foregoing with the Court’s CM/ECF

system, which served the same on all counsel of record.

By: /s/ Gregg M. Barbakoff

Gregg M. Barbakoff

Case: 1:20-cv-00486 Document #: 18 Filed: 02/19/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:66
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26880]



[[Page 68244]]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than November 26, 2014.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Steven P. Malone Revocable Trust dated December 27, 2011, and 
Steven P. Malone, as trustee of the Steven P. Malone Revocable Trust, 
Apple River, Illinois, individually, and the Steven P. Malone Revocable 
Trust dated December 27, 2011, and Steven P. Malone, as trustee of the 
Steven P. Malone Revocable Trust, together as a group acting in concert 
with Lisa M. Byrne and Matthew P. Byrne, both of Aurora, Illinois, and 
Patrick I. Malone and Jean L. Malone, both of Apple River, Illinois, to 
retain voting shares of BSB Community Bancorporation, Inc., and thereby 
indirectly retain voting shares of Benton State Bank, both Benton, 
Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 7, 
2014.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-26880 Filed 11-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Deshawn SANDERSON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-7179.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2004.

Decided Dec. 29, 2004.

Deshawn Sanderson, Appellant pro se. Raymond Edward Patricco, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Deshawn Sanderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies *300this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sanderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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*
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00638-CV

HARLANDALE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Appellant

v.

JASMINE ENGINEERING, INC.,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-02459

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we AFFIRM the order of the trial court 

denying appellant Harlandale Independent School District’s third plea to the jurisdiction. We 

REMAND the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We 

ORDER the stay that we imposed on September 24, 2019, be lifted upon issuance of the mandate. 

Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant Harlandale Independent School District.

SIGNED March 11, 2020.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the quarterly report of NB Capital Corporation (the Company),
for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Jean Dagenais, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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/ Jean Dagenais
Jean Dagenais
Chief Financial Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 14, 2003

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or any 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Mobile Biometrics Use ca

Federal Protective Servic

NIST Workshop January 2013 

Vince Eckert 

Liaison to S&T 

Department of Homeland Security 

Federal Protection Service 
The Federal Protective Servi

• Director L. Eric Patterson• 11 Regions

• Sworn Law Enforcement Officers

– 900

• Protective Security Officers (Contracted

12,600

• Facilities

– 9,000 (more than any other 

DoD agency)
Guard Accountability

• Current Challenge‐ Time and Attendanc

validation of training records

• Goal‐ Three Factor Authentication

• Industry Standards‐ FICAM, FIPS‐201, N

116

• Cellular use case‐ Limited connectivity (

Ethernet or Internet) among the GSA po
HOW????
• 

Requirements

Biometric‐ Integrated Biometric solution that has certified to meet NIST SP800‐76‐2

• Card Technology‐ Integrated contact interface co

with ISO/IEC7810 and ISO/IEC7816 and compatib

PIV, PIV‐I

• Weather Proofing‐ MIL‐STD‐810G

• Display‐ text and color image data

• Communications‐ Cellular or direct internet conn

• Security‐ encrypted communications using a cert

140‐2 encryption algorithm

• Data Pushed to Mobile device‐ Bolos....etc...
Questions

?

Vince Eckert 

Liaison to S&T 

Department of Homeland Security 

Federal Protection Service 

vincent.e.eckert.ice.dhs.gov