alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>    0001050117
<NAME>   DETAILS INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,241,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               45,865,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 16,758,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            74,207,000
<PP&E>                                      63,574,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             431,286,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       41,263,000
<BONDS>                                    365,510,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (30,473,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               431,286,000
<SALES>                                    115,727,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           115,727,000
<CGS>                                       73,912,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               73,912,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          18,496,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,132,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,515,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,617,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              2,297,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,320,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: Mayo, Dennis 

To: aiframework 

Cc: Khakoo, Farahnaaz H 

Subject: Recent GAO AI Accountability Framework 

Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 11:38:17 AM 

Hello, 

At the end of June, GAO issued its AI Accountability Framework (Artificial Intelligence: An 

Accountability Framework for Federal Agencies and Other Entities | U.S. GAO). Our framework is 

designed to assist federal program managers who oversee AI systems, as well as third-party auditors 

who assess AI systems. 

A colleague of ours passed along information about your forthcoming AI Risk Framework, and we 

wanted to ensure that you are aware of our product as you develop the AI RMF. We look forward to 

seeing your final product – please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. 

Best, 

Dennis H Mayo, PhD 

Senior Physical Scientist, STAA 

Government Accountability Office
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 98-57
C AT HERI NE A. O Z ER , A PP EL L ANT ,
V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

Be fore HOL DAWAY, I VERS, and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. O R D E R
I n a F e br ua ry 6, 20 01 , o pin ion , the Co urt rever se d a Se pte mbe r 1 99 7 B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls (B oa

rd ) de c isi on that ha d de nie d De pa rtme nt of Ve te ra

ns Af fa ir s (V A) d epen dents' educational a ssistance (D EA) be nefits, and the Court r emande d the matter f or re adjudication. Ozer v. Principi , 1 4 V e t.A

pp . 2 57 , 2 58 (2 00 1) . In its opin ion , the Court inv a lid a te d , a s inc on sis te nt w ith statutory authority (38 U.S.C. § 3512), a re g ulation ( 38 C.F.R. § 21.3046(c) (2000)) that the B oard had applied to de ny

the DEA be nefits soug ht by the appe llant. Id. at 2 6 4

. T h e appellant subsequently

filed, throug h counsel, a

n application for an awa

rd of attorney fee s and expenses under the Equal Ac cess to Just ice Ac t, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (EAJA); the Secre tary filed a r esponse, a

nd the appellant f

iled a re ply

there to. The Secr etar

y does not contest the appellant' s EAJA application on the basis of a

ny jurisdictional require ments, and the Court holds that the application satisfies all such re qu ir e me nts

. S

ee 28 U.S.C. § 24 12 (d )( 1) (B ); Scarborough v. Principi , 273 F.3d 1087, 1092- 93 (F ed. Cir. 2001).
The Sec reta

ry contends that his position was subst antially justified at bot h the administrative and l i t i gat i o n s t ag es in the merits ca se, and the appellant disag ree s. I n discussing in their br iefs wh e the r t he Se c re tary

wa s su bs tanti a lly

jus tif ie d a t th e a dmi nis tr a tiv e sta g e , b oth pa rt ie s a dd re ss whether the B oard w as substantially justified in rely ing on the now-inva lidated re g ulation. Neither party , howeve r, addr esses whe ther the Sec reta ry was substantially

justified in pres cr i bing that regulation. See Fe lto n v . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A pp . 2 76 , 2 86 (1 99 4) (d e te rm ini ng that " ste ps that led to VA' s promulga

tion of the regulation (i.e., the pre litigation conduc t) [were] substantially justified") ; id. at 288-89 (Steinber g , J ., dissenting) (addr essing that qu es t ion but concluding to the contra ry ). The Court finds that fur

ther brie fing is nece ssary

on this question. Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is ORDERED that, not later tha n 30 day s afterthe date of this order, the Sec reta

ry file, and serve on the appe llant, a memora ndum of law a ddressing the above question. I t is further2

ORDERED that, not lat er t han 30 day s after service of the Sec reta

ry ' s memorandum, the ap p e l l a n t f

i l e, an d s er v e o n t h e S ec re t ary , a m em o ra n d u m o f l aw i n re s p o n s e t o t h e S ec re t ar y 's me mor a nd

um a nd to thi s ord e r. Am ic us c ur ia e , the Natio na l O rg a nizatio n o f V e te ra ns Ad vo c a te s, may file a me morandum of law in the same pe riod of time af forde d to the appellant.
DATED: April 24, 2002 PER C URI AM.
Exhibit 32.1 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 Annual Report of Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James Hooke, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (1)

          the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)

          the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. By:

          /s/ James HookeJames Hooke Chief Executive Officer February 20, 2013 A signed original 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.
H. Res. 495

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 25, 1998.

Whereas, prior to July 3, 1848, many Africans were held as

slaves on the islands of the Danish West Indies, now the

United States Virgin Islands;

Whereas, on July 3, under the leadership of Moses ‘‘General

Budhoe’’ Gottlieb, the African slaves on the Island of St.

Croix responded to the signal of the blowing of conch

shells by leaving their plantations to converge on Fort

Frederick in the town of Frederiksted;

Whereas in Frederiksted the African slaves demanded their

freedom and threatened to destroy the island by fire unless it was granted by 4 o’clock that afternoon;

Whereas, confronted by reports of arson and insurrection, the

Danish governor, Peter von Scholten, met the African

slaves in Frederiksted and declared that ‘‘all unfree in

the Danish West Indies are from today free’’;

Whereas the heroes of this rebellion paid a high price, General Budhoe being sent into exile, and Governor von

Scholten being convicted in Denmark of dereliction of

duty and of exceeding his authority;

Whereas the American people declared their independence

from the British on July 4, 1776; and
2

•HRES 495 EH

Whereas the courage of these heroes serves to connect Virgin

Islanders and all Americans to their past and to reinforce

their unwavering commitment to preserve, protect, and

defend freedom: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges—

(1) the American people to recognize the historical

significance of the emancipation of African slaves in

what is now the United States Virgin Islands; and

(2) Virgin Islanders and all Americans to maintain

their unwavering commitment to preserve, protect, and

defend human rights and freedom.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Gerald MEACHUM, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph SMITH, Warden; United States of America, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 04-6836.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 21, 2004.

Gerald Meachum, Appellant pro se. Barbara Murder Bowens, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

*884PER CURIAM.

Gerald Meachum appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition, construing the petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it as successive. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Meachum v. Smith,*No. CA-03-2730-9-12 (D.S.C. April 22, 2004). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### WIGGINS v. BUSHRANGER FENCE CO.

No. 239P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 74

Petition by appellants (Budget and Cigna) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 July 1997.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7228
JERRY SAUNDERS, a/k/a Jerry Sanders, Petitioner - Appellant, versus BUREAU OF PRISONS; SUPERINTENDENT, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION MIAMI, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-34; CA-04-275-3) Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: January 11, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jerry Saunders, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition characterized as a motion to vacate 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 this 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. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Saunders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Furthermore, we deny Saunders’ motion for default judgment filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)(b)(2). 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
H. Res. 469

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

August 3, 1998.

Whereas the United States has a Cooperative Fire Suppression Agreement with Canada to address the issue of fires

occurring along the border between the two countries;

Whereas in the past fires starting in Mexico have grown out

of control and have spread into the United States; and

Whereas both the United States Forest Service and the Mexican Forest Service have expressed an interest in having

a cooperative fire suppression agreement between the

United States and Mexico: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should initiate negotiations with

Mexico at the earliest date possible in order to come to a mutually beneficial agreement as soon as possible addressing the

concerns of both countries in suppressing fires occurring

along the border between the two countries.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6497

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DUANE MONTRIK BURTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-00-105, CA-02-182-7-F)

Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Duane Montrik Burton, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Duane Montrik Burton 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 this 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, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burton 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.2

Eastern Division

Jacqueline Stevens, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02725

Honorable Mary M. Rowland

DHS

Defendant.

NOTICE OF MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY

The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key

features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP)

Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all

parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing

Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery

obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1).

Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents

(Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when

the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third−Party Complaint is served.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 3 Filed: 05/06/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:23
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NB CAPITAL
CORPORATION'S UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND UNAUDITED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 INCLUDED IN NB CAPITAL
CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001049551
<NAME>                        NB Capital Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          71,717,697
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  416,046,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               487,764,194
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 487,764,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              341,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          3,001
<COMMON>                                                 1
<OTHER-SE>                                     487,420,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   487,764,194
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,316,968
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   354,209
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 354,209
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,962,759
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,962,759
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,962,759
<EPS-BASIC>                                       26,931
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       26,931



</TABLE>
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00106

- CR

DAVID GENTRY WALLER, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Red River County, Texas Trial Court No. CR01897

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.2 

### O RDER
Court reporter Terry Spangler recorded the trial court proceedings in our cause number
06

- 13

- 00106

- CR, styled David Gentry Waller v. The State of Texas , trial court cause number CR01897 in the 6th Judicial District Court of Red River County, Texas. The reporter ’s record was due in this case on September 12, 2013. The record is now nineteen days past due. Spangler has failed to respond to inquiries made by our clerk’s office regarding the whereabouts of the record. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure establ ish that “trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 35.3(c). The Rules further instruct that an “appellate court may enter any order necessary to ensure the timely filing o f the appellate record.” Id. In furtherance of our responsibilities established by the Rules, we find we must take steps to ensure that the reporter’s record is filed in these cases. We, therefore, order Terry Spangler to file the reporter’s record in c ause number 06

- 13

- 00106

- CR, David Gentry Waller v. The State of Texas , trial court cause number CR01897, to be received by this Court no later than Thursday, October 31, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT
Date: October 1, 2013
EXHIBIT 32.35

 

 

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 Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary L. Paxton, Chief Executive Officer ofthe 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/ Gary L. Paxton

Gary L. Paxton

Chief Executive Officer

February 26, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

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.