alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0586

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JACOB CHRISTIAN PALMER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 26, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 19 2022

09/19/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0586
Exhibit 13.2

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code),
the undersigned officer of LG Display Co., Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date: June 23, 2009



/s/ JAMES JEONGJames (Hoyoung) JeongDirector/ Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to LG Display Co., Ltd. and will be retained by LG Display Co., Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 99

<PAGE>

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT
                        --------------------------------



Board of Directors and Stockholders
SFSB Holding Company

We have  reviewed the  accompanying  consolidated  balance sheet of SFSB Holding
Company  and  subsidiary  as of June  30,  2000,  and the  related  consolidated
statements of income for the three and six-month  period ended June 30, 2000 and
1999,  consolidated  statement of cash flow for the six-month  period ended June
30, 2000 and 1999 and the  consolidated  statement  of changes in  stockholders'
equity  for the  six-month  period  ended  June  30,  2000.  These  consolidated
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information  consists  principally  of applying  analytical  and  procedures  to
financial  data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is
the  expression  of an opinion  regarding the  financial  statements  taken as a
whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance  with generally  accepted  auditing
standards,  the  consolidated  balance  sheet as of December 31,  1999,  and the
related consolidated  statements of income,  changes in stockholders' equity and
cash  flows for the year then ended (not  presented  herein);  and in our report
dated  February  11,  2000  we  expressed  an   unqualified   opinion  on  those
consolidated financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth in
the accompanying  consolidated  balance sheet as of December 31, 1999, is fairly
stated, in all material respects,  in relation to the consolidated balance sheet
from which it has been derived.



/s/S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, PA
August 3, 2000
SCENARIO: 

A health care system executive left their work-issued laptop, which had access to over 40,000 medical 

records, in a locked car while running an errand. The car was broken into, and the laptop stolen.

ATTACK:

Physical theft of an unencrypted device. 

Encryption is the process of scrambling readable text so it can only be read by the person who has the decryption key. It creates an added layer of security 

for sensitive information.

RESPONSE:

The employee immediately reported the theft to the police and to the health care system’s IT department 

who disabled the laptop’s remote access and began monitoring activity. The laptop was equipped with 

security tools and password protection. Data stored on the hard drive was not encrypted – this included 

sensitive, personal patient data. The hospital had to follow state laws as they pertain to a data breach. 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was also notified. Personally Identifiable Information 

(PII) and Protected Health Information (PHI) data require rigorous reporting processes and standards.

After the theft and breach, the health care system began an extensive review of internal policies; they 

created a discipline procedure for employees who violate security standards. A thorough review of 

security measures with internal IT staff and ancillary IT vendors revealed vulnerabilities.

IMPACT:

The health care system spent over $200,000 in remediation, monitoring, and operational improvements. A 

data breach does impact a brand negatively and trust has to be rebuilt. 

LESSONS LEARNED:

1 Companies must establish and train employees on secure handling of work-issued devices.

2 Devices must be safely stored when not in the immediate presence of the employee.

3 Companies must take steps to encrypt data wherever it is stored or transmitted. Employees 

should have a clear understanding of the importance of encryption and how to use it.

4 Companies must understand and know their responsibilities under the data breach notification 

laws of the state(s) in which they operate.

5 A regular review of the company’s security practices is imperative in modern organizations to 

prevent incidents, discover vulnerabilities, and to reduce impact of incidents. 

DISCUSS:

• Knowing how the firm responded, what would you have done differently?

• What are some steps you think the firm could have taken to prevent this incident?

• Is your business susceptible to this kind of attack? How are you going to reduce your risk?

RESOURCES:

• NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Corner: https://www.nist.gov/itl/smallbusinesscyber

• National Cybersecurity Alliance: https://staysafeonline.org/cybersecure-business/

Stolen Hospital Laptop Causes Heartburn

Case

3

SMALL BUSINESS CYBERSECURITY CASE STUDY SERIES

This resource, funded through NIST Federal Award 70NANB19H165, is intended to be used for general education purposes. The content of the case studies is a combination of publicly available 

information, business-submitted information, and fictional details to create an educational scenario.
**Exhibit 13.8**

 

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

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Ventures Limited (the “Company”)for the annual period ended 31 December 2008 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Rick Medlock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Periodic Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Date: 29 April 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMPX
INTERNATIONAL INC.'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          43,604
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,868
<ALLOWANCES>                                       490
<INVENTORY>                                     15,851
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,620
<PP&E>                                          45,450
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,146
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,679
<BONDS>                                            261
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           161
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,927
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,202
<SALES>                                         32,129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,129
<CGS>                                           21,393
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    80
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,584
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,434
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,166
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,166
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Lisa S. PERKINS, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.

No. 04-3360.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 3, 2004.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000287

25-FEB-2020

08:12 AM
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

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal, without prejudice, as to the following Defendant(s) identified on Schedule A of the 

Complaint:

NO. DEFENDANT

89 VEQSKING Outdoors_Fans Store

445 WANAYOU Official Store

DATED: September 28, 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 #: 39 Filed: 09/28/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:9379
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

document was electronically filed on September 28, 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 #: 39 Filed: 09/28/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:9380
SHONDARIOUS CLEO BROWN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2343

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 20, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Darlene F. Dickey, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION


I, JOHN P. GRAZER, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
 periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Argent
 Securities, Inc. 2004-W8:

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 servicer under the pooling
and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion is included in these
reports;

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

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
report provided by and independent public account, 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: Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company.

<page>



Date: March 1, 2005

ARGENT SECURITIES INC.


/s/: John P Grazer
John P Grazer
CFO
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of LG Display Co., Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date: April 30, 2015



/s/ SANG BEOM HANSang Beom HanRepresentative Director, President andChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 has been provided to LG Display Co., Ltd. and will be retained by LG Display Co., Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### T. M. Dover Mercantile Company *v.*Myers.

Opinion delivered December 2, 1929.

*577
      *Alley & Olney,*for appellant.

McHaney, J.

Appellant sued appellee on a mutual open account current for a balance of $1,020.71 and interest, beginning in November, 1922, and running through the years to November, 1927, vfith items of debit and credit in nearly every month during that time. There is little dispute about the correctness of the account, except appellee claims some items of credit not shown on the itemized statement'. This case was submitted to the jury on an instruction from the court to the effect that, since appellee had pleaded the statute of limitations, they could not find for appellant for any of the items on the account which were purchased more than three years 'before the filing of the suit. 'This instruction was given over appellant’s objections and exceptions. There was a verdict and judgment for $63.05 in appellant’s favor.

We think the court was clearly in error in giving the above-mentioned instruction limiting the recovery to sales within three years prior to suit. The evidence, as well as the account, shows that appellant sold appellee sundry merchandise from its store, and that appellee sold appellant various articles of farm products, ties, gravel, etc., and paid appellant various sums in cash from time to time during the entire period. This constituted mutual accounts, mutual demands. See *St. Francis Valley Lbr. Co.*v. *Orcutt,*174 Ark. 282, 295 S. W. 713. Our statute, § 6964, fixing- a limitation on “mutual account,” provides: “In actions of debt, account or assumpsit, brought to recover any balance due upon a mutual open account current, the cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued from the time of the" last item proved in such account. ’ ’

Therefore appellant was not limited to a recovery for items sold within three years prior to suit, but is entitled to recover any balance found to be due after allowing ail just credits due the appellee.

Reversed, and remanded for a new trial.
From: David Draper

Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2022 4:35:42 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

To: aiframework <aiframework@nist.gov>

Subject: Feedback AI NIST Framework

Draft 2 of the NIST AI Risk Management Framework is very thorough and solidly grounded in best 

practices for risk management. This includes risk management in terms of social context of AI systems 

risks.

 

While appropriate for many use cases, I am concerned that the emphasis placed on social issues (and 

context) in the Framework may minimize the importance practitioners in the engineering and hard 

sciences place on managing the risks AI systems pose. This may include use in contexts such as 

manufacturing, mining, chemicals, agriculture, and other industrial systems and processes in which 

“black box” algorithms are replacing first principles engineering and scientific practices.

AI systems risk management includes choice of algorithm. Engineers don’t have to abandon first 

principles when choosing an AI algorithm. For many use cases the additional investment in models 

which are grounded in first principles, but still drawing on big data produced by industrial processes, will 

be worth the effort. This should be called out, and might be appropriately emphasized as part of Map 

2.3: Scientific integrity and TEVV considerations.

Overreliance on “black box” algorithms reduces the value of domain specific expertise for managing risk 

that the disciplines of engineering and the sciences provide.

Best Regards,

David Draper

Determinant, LLC
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 28, 1998 AND CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 28, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                     203,310,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              197,811,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                14,452,000
<INVENTORY>                                199,777,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           628,895,000
<PP&E>                                     197,194,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              68,374,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             798,790,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      210,390,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       956,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 576,411,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               798,790,000
<SALES>                                    479,528,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           479,528,000
<CGS>                                      263,298,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              406,290,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,979,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             80,217,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                26,719,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         53,498,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                53,498,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.55
        

</TABLE>