alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
XML MobileID Work

ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2007 S

Part 1: Convention

Michael McCabe 

(301) 975-2932

mccabe@nist.gov

fingerprint.nist.gov/standa

September 18, 2007 September 18, 2007
September 18, 2007 XML & Mobile ID Workshop 

ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-20

NIST Special Publication 5

z Data Format for the Interchange of 

Facial, & Other Biometric Informatio

z Voluntary Consensus Standard – Oz Developed by a variety of interestz Original 1986; Revisions 1993, 199z Two workshops in 2005 to review sz Several enhancement including fac

Civilian Background prints, Iris reco

z April 20, 2007 - the 2007 version apz fingerprint.nist.gov/standard
September 18, 2007 XML & Mobile ID Workshop 

Approved XML Resolu

z Results of the 2nd Workshop

– Develop a Part 2: Alternate XM

the 2007 conventional standard

– Include all 2007 updates from t

conventional version

– A 1:1 correspondence of data – NIEM & GJXDM objects used– One standard : Two Parts
September 18, 2007 XML & Mobile ID Workshop 

XML Part 2 Objectiv

z Preserve backward compatibiz Conform to NIEM extension rz Use NIEM 2 objects where poz Define a NIST-ITL namespacz Conform to documentation re
September 18, 2007 XML & Mobile ID Workshop 

Basic Structure

z Transaction consists of two or more z Sixteen numbered record types defz Records defined as text, image, or z Records consist of ASCII text, bina

combination (tagged) fields

z Fields contain subfield and informaz ASCII fields can be optional or manz ASCII field identified by:

– Record Type, period, field number, co– Example: 1.005:20070918
September 18, 2007 XML & Mobile ID Workshop 

Record Description

• Mandatory Transaction itself (Ty• Descriptive and rap sheet (Type • Finger/palm images and minutia

(Type 3-6; 9; 13-15)

• User-defined image (Type 7; 16)• Signature (Type – 8)• Facial & SMT (Type 10)• Iris image (Type 17)• CBEFF Biometric data record (T
September 18, 2007 XML & Mobile ID Workshop 

Information Delimite

z ASCII separator characters used 

text information

FS - Records GS – FieldsRS – Subfields US – Informati

z Binary image records (Type 3-6)z Each consists of defined required 

– 8 fixed binary fields (18 bytes)– 1 image data field
September 18, 2007 XML & Mobile ID Workshop 

Example: Type 1 - Transac

Length (LEN) 1.001:245{GS}Version (VER) 1.002:0404{GS}Content (CNT) 1.003:1{US}8{RS}

10{US}01{RS}14{U

Type (TOT) 1.004:XXX{GS}Date (DAT) 1.005:20070918{GPriority (PRY) 1.006:1{GS}..................................{FS}
September 18, 2007 XML & Mobile ID Workshop 

Example of Type 14 Example of Type 14 –Fing

Fing

LENGTH (LEN) 14.001:10728IMG DES CHAR(IDC) 14.002:02{GSIMP Type (IMP) 14.003:20{GSSRC Agency (SRC) 14.004:NY03

SLAS01000{G

CAP DATE(FCD) 14.005:20070.......IMAGE DATA 14.000:<IMG
-- 

To: cyberframework 

Subject: Feedback on CSF 2.0 Draft 

Date: Thursday, June 1, 2023 2:02:46 PM 

Response to Discussion Draft of the NIST 

Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 Core 

This document is in response to the April 24, 2023 request for comments on the Discussion 

Draft of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 core. Andrew Micone is a Security 

Operations manager in the finance sector and a Futurist who previously participated in 

previous NIST supply-chain forums as part of the supply-chain and logistics body RosettaNet, 

the original National Cyber Security working groups at UCSD, at the invitation of NIST to 

respond to the health care industry vertical for the framework at NCU, and as part of the recent 

industry feedback session for the National Privacy Framework at BSU. His current academic 

work is part of the futurist think-tank TechCast, a special project of the Policy Institute at 

George Washington University. He regularly presents on usage and updates to the National 

CyberSecurity framework as part of his volunteer work on the board of the ISACA Idaho 

Chapter. 

General Comments 

Good job; the Governance breakout in CSF 2.0 better aligns with the staged maturity 

models like CMMI and should assist with adoption, but let's keep the work done in 

CSF 1.1 on the implied adoption framework that was never fully built out. That should 

be built upon more to aid adoption, which could be part of how you present it (e.g., 

the core of an organization's evolution from a managed implementation to a defined 

implementation would be what's contained in GOV). This is especially important since 

the only staged maturity model NIST has been involved in was the CMMC, and from 

1.0 to 2.0 that evolved from a CMMI-style staged maturity model to solely an 

assurance model for use by DoD vendors. 

The maturation of risk management framework controls will help promote integrated 

risk management. 

Andy Micone 

[+] Add me to your address book
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Asif J. Poonja

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04388

Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr.

Kelly Services, Inc.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, November 15, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: In view of the filing of a

notice of settlement and motion to strike existing deadlines [50], the motion [50] is

granted. All pending deadlines are stricken without prejudice. This case is set for a backup

telephonic status hearing on 1/11/2021 at 9:00 a.m. Participants should use the Court's

toll−free, call−in number 877−336−1829, passcode is 6963747. If a stipulation of

dismissal is filed prior to the status hearing date, the hearing will be stricken and the case

will be closed. Notice of motion date of 11/16/2021 is stricken and no appearances are

necessary on that date. Emailed notice(cdh, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04388 Document #: 53 Filed: 11/15/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:307
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JT/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOHAN SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-74546

Agency No. A097-604-924

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Mohan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

FILED

DEC 23 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JT/Research 2 06-74546

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse

credibility determination, Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008),

and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that it was implausible that

Singh would visit the United States on several occasions following his arrest and

brutal beating in 1998 and not seek asylum, despite knowing that such relief was

available to him. See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-19 (9th Cir. 2008)

(petitioner’s voluntary return to her home country inherently undermined her

testimony that she experienced past suffering, and therefore supported an adverse

credibility finding). In the absence of credible testimony, Singh has failed to

establish he is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v.

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found

not credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not

he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Paulo Sergio Kakinoff, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of GOL LINHAS AÉREAS INTELIGENTES S.A.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’s other certifying officer 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 company and have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the company’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 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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 company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

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

Date: April 28, 2016

By:               /s/ *Paulo Sergio Kakinoff*
**Exhibit 13.3**

 

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

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Group Limited (the “Company”) forthe annual period ended 31 December 2006 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Andrew Sukawaty, Chief Executive 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: 27 April 2007
| Exhibit 99.3 **EMC**Mortgage Corporation Officer's Certificate BSABS 2004-HE4 I, Mark D. Ehrenreich, Senior Vice President of EMC Mortgage Corporation, do hereby certify to the designated Trustee that in respect to the period ending November 30, 2004, a review of the activities of EMC Mortgage Corporation ("EMC") during the preceding fiscal year or applicable portion thereof and it's performance under the above referenced Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision. To the best of  my knowledge, based on such review, EMC has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if there has been a default in the fulfillment of any such obligations, specifying each such default known to such Servicing Officer the nature and status thereof except for such defaults as such officer in its good faith judgment believe to be immaterial. ***/s/ Mark D. Ehrenreich*Mark D. Ehrenreich, Senior Vice President *2/28/05*Date** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40991

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FAVIAN MARTINEZ-AMADOR,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-03-CR-244-1

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Favian Martinez-Amador appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Martinez-Amador contends that the “felony” and “aggravated

felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are

unconstitutional. He therefore argues that his conviction must

be reduced to one under the lesser included offense found in 8

U.S.C. § 1362(a), his judgment must be reformed to reflect a
No. 03-40991

-2-

conviction only under that provision, and his sentence must be

vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to no more than

two years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Martinez-Amador acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

VALENTINO ROSSI, )

) Case No. 20-cv-4746

Plaintiff, ) 

)

) Judge Virginia M. Kendall

v. )

)

THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, )

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, )

PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED )

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED )

ON SCHEDULE A HERETO, )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff VALENTINO ROSSI

hereby dismisses with prejudice all causes of action in the complaint as to certain Defendants identified 

below and in Schedule A. No motions are pending relative to these Defendants. Each party shall bear its 

own attorney’s fees and costs.

No. Defendant 

82 supermodeler-903

311 luxaryprint

The respective Defendants have not filed an answer to the complaint or a motion for summary 

judgment in this matter. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is 

appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 18, 2021 By: s/Michael A. Hierl _ 

Michael A. Hierl (Bar No. 3128021)

William B. Kalbac (Bar No. 6301771)

Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.

Three First National Plaza

70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 580-0100 Telephone

mhierl@hsplegal.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

VALENTINO ROSSI

Case: 1:20-cv-04746 Document #: 54 Filed: 03/18/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:4647
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

Voluntary Dismissal was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court and served on all counsel of 

record and interested parties via the CM/ECF system on March 18, 2021.

s/Michael A. Hierl

Case: 1:20-cv-04746 Document #: 54 Filed: 03/18/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:4648
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3

Eastern Division

Mish International Monetary Inc.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04577

Honorable Manish S. Shah

Vega Capital London, Ltd., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, January 27, 2023:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Defendants' motion to

bifurcate class certification and merits discovery [198] is denied, with the caveat that

class−certification discovery will necessarily be prioritized to comply with this scheduling

order. The parties may issue written discovery on 1/31/23. All fact discovery, including

any foreign discovery, must be noticed in time for completion by 12/30/24. Plaintiff's

motion for class certification, including any supporting expert reports, is due 1/22/24.

Defendants' (joint) opposition to class certification, including any supporting expert

reports, is due 3/4/24. Plaintiff's reply along with rebuttal expert reports is due 4/8/24. The

court expects the parties to confer on a class−certification expert discovery and deposition

protocol. If the parties cannot agree, the court will impose a protocol by 10/30/23. The

court will set deadlines for amendment of the pleadings, merits expert discovery, and

dispositive motions when the parties get closer to completing fact discovery. An agreed

proposed confidentiality order may be submitted to

proposed_order_shah@ilnd.uscourts.gov. The parties shall file a joint status report

describing discovery accomplished, any disputes needing court intervention, and the

witnesses to be deposed (and on what timetable) on 7/12/23. The parties may contact the

courtroom deputy to schedule a status conference with the court and to request court

assistance on any discovery issues. Notices mailed. (psm, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ABC CORPORATION I, ABC CORPORATION II,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

TOMOLOO OFFICIAL, TOMOLOO INE, TOMOLOO 

FRANCHISE, TOMOLOO-US, TOMOLOO 

FLAGSHIP, TOMOLOO TC, TOMOLOO DX, 

TOMOLOO INT, URBANMAX, GYROOR, FENGCHIUS, GYROOR US,

Defendants

GAODESHANGUS,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2021-2150

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:20-cv-04806, Judge 

Thomas M. Durkin.

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

ABC CORPORATION I, ABC CORPORATION II,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

EBAY, INC.,

Plaintiff

v.

THE PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

TOMOLOO OFFICIAL, TOMOLOO INE, TOMOLOO 

FRANCHISE, TOMOLOO-US, TOMOLOO 

FLAGSHIP, TOMOLOO TC, TOMOLOO DX, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 623 Filed: 12/05/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:15739 Case: 21-2150 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 12/05/2022
TOMOLOO INT, GAODESHANGUS, GYROOR, 

CARTSTACK, DIDEN WU, HUSNALCOLLECTIONS, MHESTORE2009, 

WHOLESALESHOP666, CARRIE_YUX-5, 

2013TANKSTRONG001, MIJIASTORE, PAUTA60, 

SKATEBOARDSTORE2012, SMG-STORE,

STRONGJENNIE, CHO POWER SPORTS, SYLUS, 

XGN, SHAMOLUOTUO, 

XUEWEIWEIFUZHUANGDIAN, EVERCROSS, XIE 

SHI, JIANGYOU-US, RUNCHENYUN, TOMOLOO, 

SHOPCHEAPUNIVERSAL, TOMOLOO-NX, 

AOXTECH, BETTER TOMOLOO, LISON ET, 

GYROSHOES, HGSM STOREFRONT, HGSM,

Defendants

GYROOR US, URBANMAX, FENGCHI-US,

Defendants-Appellants

______________________

2021-2277, 2021-2355

______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:20-cv-04806, Judge 

Thomas M. Durkin.

______________________

MANDATE

______________________

In accordance with the judgment of this Court, entered

October 28, 2022, and pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is 

hereby issued.

FOR THE COURT

December 5, 2022

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 623 Filed: 12/05/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:15740 Case: 21-2150 Document: 59 Page: 2 Filed: 12/05/2022