alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Continuing Education Units

VERIFICATION OF ATTENDANCE FORM

Certification Number:________________

 attended the following professional educational activity. 

(NAME)

Title: National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Webinar: Accredited Credential ProgramsBuilding Trust Between Employers and Credential Providers Through Rigorous Assessments

Date(s): May 19, 2021 CEU Hours Earned: 1 hr 

Sponsor(s): National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Explanation of Event: This webinar will describe advantages of offering accredited credentials; introduce key accrediting 

bodies; determine which type of credentials are appropriate; requirements of accrediting bodies; the basic elements of ISO 

17024 standards for accreditation; the process for creating a fair and valid assessment required for accredited credentialing 

programs; and use of search engines to analyze credentials for accreditation status. Webinar attendees will hear

presentations from: 

• Bridget McHugh, PhD, Research Specialist (Psychometrician), Center on Education and Training for Employment 

(CETE), The Ohio State University

• James Austin, Program Lead, CETE Assessment, Center on Education and Training for Employment (CETE),

College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University

Location: Virtual Webinar; www.nist.gov/nice/webinars

Name of Meeting Host: Rodney Petersen, Director of the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE)

 

Contact Information:

nist.gov/nice

nice@nist.gov

The Continuing Education Units form is provided as a courtesy. It is the responsibility of the 

attendee to complete and submit with their certifying authority.
Exhibit 10(B)



 






Exhibit 10(b)




LESCO, INC.




BOARD OF DIRECTORS

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 21 and 22, 2005




RESOLUTIONS




SEVERANCE




     RESOLVED, that each associate directly reporting to the President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company (a “Direct Report”) shall receive severance pay in an amount equal to twelve month’s
base salary (the “Severance Amount”) if he or she is terminated without cause (as determined by the
Board of Directors), regardless of whether he or she is able to obtain other employment during the
period that he or she is being paid the Severance Amount;



     FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Severance Amount shall be paid, at the option of the Direct Report,
(i) in equal installments over a period of twelve months in accordance with the Company’s customary
payroll practices or (ii) in lump sum (without discount for present value) within fifteen days of
termination of the Direct Report’s employment without cause;



     FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Severance Amount shall be subject to all withholding as
contemplated by Article IV.D of the Company’s Severance Pay Policy (Corporate Policy #C-005) (the
“Policy”);



     FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Company’s obligation to pay the Severance Amount shall be subject
to satisfaction of the conditions set forth in Article VI of the Policy;



     FURTHER RESOLVED, that payment of the Severance Amount by the Company shall be in lieu of
payment of the severance pay provided in Article III of the Policy, but the Direct Report shall be
entitled to receive all other benefits he or she would otherwise be entitled to pursuant to the
Policy;



     FURTHER RESOLVED, that, notwithstanding the foregoing, a Direct Report shall not be entitled
to receive the Severance Amount if he or she is party to and entitled to benefits under a written
severance, retention or similar agreement with the Company in connection with the termination of
the Direct Report’s employment;



     FURTHER RESOLVED, that amendment or termination of the Policy shall not affect the rights of a
Direct Report under these resolutions;



     FURTHER RESOLVED, that these resolutions shall not limit the Company’s right to terminate the
Direct Report’s employment for any reason or no reason, and the



 









 





Exhibit 10(b)



Direct Report’s employment shall continue to be “at will,” subject to the terms of any written
employment agreement between the Company and the Direct Report; and




     FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors may amend or terminate these resolutions at any
time.
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.02

                     RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS

I, Patrick Hayward, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of ML Futures Investments L.P.;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant'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)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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; and

   b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
   procedures and such 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;

   c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
   over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
   fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
   materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
   reporting; and

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

   a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
   operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely
   affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal control
   over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2005
-----------------------

By /s/ PATRICK HAYWARD
   -------------------
Patrick Hayward
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
PRESENTATION TO THE

IOT ADVISORY BOARD

JULY 19, 2023

Chris Moore, Founder/President 

Mission Critical Insights LLC

(925)989-7230

christopher.m.moore@comcast.net
PRESENTATION OUTLINE

• Speaker Background

• Public Safety Issues

• Policy Intersections

• Potential Recommendations

• Q & A
SPEAKER BACKGROUND

• Retired Major City Chief of Police – San Jose PD

• 35+ year public safety career

• Partner Emeritus, Brooks Bawden Moore LLC

• White House Fellow (DOJ) 1999-2000

• Fulbright Law Enforcement Fellow 2004

• JD/MPA –Member CA State Bar

• FBI National Executive Institute

• CA POST Law Enforcement Command College
PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES

• Public Safety Next Generation 911

• Public Safety Communications

• UAS in Law Enforcement

• School Safety

• Cyber Security
POLICY INTERSECTIONS

• Law Enforcement Use of Technology 

• Privacy, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties Concerns

• Transportation (Connected Cars, Autonomous Vehicles, 

Trucking, Rail, Shipping)

• Standards for IoT Deployment
POTENTIAL 

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Federal Grant Solicitations and Guidance Should Address 

How IoT Could/Should Be Incorporated into Federal 

Programs

• Federal RFPs/RFIs Should Include a Requirement for an IoT 

Plan (at a minimum to show that bidders have thought 

about how IoT could be incorporated into large projects)

• General Statement About How New Technologies are 

Merely Tools and Should Not Be Avoided Because of 

Potential or Theoretical Risks
QUESTIONS?
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-43,677-04

IN RE BILL Y DONNELL BUCKLEY, Relat or

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. W88-82855 IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2

F ROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ o f m an damus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. I n it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County , that more than 35 day s have elapse d, and that the applica tion has not y et bee n forwa rded to this Court. I n these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. Respondent, the District Clerk of Dallas County , is order ed to f

ile a response , which may be made by submitt ing the rec ord on such habea s corpus application, submitt ing a copy of a timely filed order which desig nates issues to be investiga ted ( see McCree v. Hampton , 824 S.W .2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in Dalla s C o u n t y . S hould the response include an order desig nating issues, proof of the date the district attorne y ’s o ff i ce was

serve d with the habea s applicatio n an d that the 180-day time fra me set out in T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 5) has not e x pired shall also be submitt ed with the re sponse. This application for leave to file a writ of m andamus shall be held in abey ance until R espondent has submitt ed the appropr iate response . Such response shall be submitted within 30 day s of the date of this order.

Filed: January

16, 2019 Do not publish
#### W. G. Morris *v.*Levi Tyler's Exrs.

Frauds, Statute of — Promise to Answer for Debt of Another.

Appellant undertook to satisfy the debt he owed Hill by paying the amount to Speed, Hill’s creditor, which was a promise founded on sufficient consideration, and need not be in writing to make it obligatory.

APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 11, 1871.

*Stevenson & Myers, for appellant.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

According to the allegations of the petition appellee, Speed, as executor of Tyler, leased the premises to Hill at $1,000 per annum, payable quarterly. Subsequently Hill sub-let them to appellant at the same rent he was to pay, with Speed’s consent and, although, appellant, as is alleged, refused to accept the order drawn on him by Hill for the quarter’s rent falling due the 1st of October, 1869, it is alleged that he had occupied the premises for more than three months prior to the date aforesaid, was justly indebted therefor in the sum named, and that he had after undertaken and promised to pay Speed the debt aforesaid, but had hitherto wholly neglected to pay the same or any part thereof.

These allegations are not controverted, and taken as true, import that appellants being indebted to Hill in the sum of $250 for a quarter’s rent, in consideration thereof, undertook and promised to pay Speed, the landlord, said sum in satisfaction of Hill’s indebtedness to Speed.

It was an undertaking on the part of appellant to satisfy the debt he owed Hill by paying the amount to Speed, Hill’s creditor, a promise founded on a sufficient consideration and need not be in writing to make it obligatory.

Let the judgment, therefore, be affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5

<S>                             <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END> DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START> JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>  SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 6,777
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         15,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                             647
<INVENTORY>                                            1,342
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      23,096
<PP&E>                                                81,393
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (65,740)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    10,038,749
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                311,280
<BONDS>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                          11,367,424
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                        10,000,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      10,038,749
<SALES>                                                   12
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          12
<CGS>                                                    663
<TOTAL-COSTS>					     102,679
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   (27,338)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (130,017)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (130,017)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (.01)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6506

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH PRYSOCK, a/k/a JoJo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District 

Judge. (1:06-cr-00676-MBS-1)

Submitted: June 7, 2012 Decided: July 13, 2012

Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Prysock, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Mark C. Moore, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Prysock appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction 

of sentence.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Prysock, No. 1:06-cr-00676-

MBS-1 (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2012). We deny as unnecessary Prysock’s 

motion for a certificate of appealability and 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

 * Although Prysock argues on appeal that the district court 

erred in denying his post-conviction motion filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011), we have no authority to 

entertain this claim. Prysock’s notice of appeal specifically 

sought review of the district court’s order denying his 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion and, in any event, was not timely as to the 

lower court’s earlier ruling denying Prysock’s § 2255 motion. 

Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider Prysock’s challenge to 

the denial of § 2255 relief.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03758

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, March 29, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Motion hearing held by

telephone on 3/29/2021. For the reasons stated on the record, the motion to compel

interrogatory responses from Defendant Jeremy Ruth [57] is denied as moot. Motion to

compel the deposition of Defendant Jeremy Ruth [67] is also denied as moot. The parties

agreed to schedule Mr. Ruth's deposition for 6/4/2021 at 9:00 a.m. The telephone status

hearing previously set for 7/1/2021 at 9:00 a.m. stands. Mr. Ruth is required to be on the

call. To join the telephone conference, dial 877−402−9757, Access Code 4410831.

Members of the public and media will be able to call in to listen to this hearing. Please be

sure to keep your phone on mute when you are not speaking. Persons granted remote

access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing,

recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may

result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to

future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed

necessary by the Court. Mailed notice. (ecw, )

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-03758 Document #: 69 Filed: 03/29/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:541
#### Carmen Rosa FUENTES, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-74006, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*574Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 13, 2004.

Carmen Rosa Fuentes, Lawdale, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Anh-Thu P. Mai, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Carmen Rosa Fuentes, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105(a). *See Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. *See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence, *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000), and deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Fuentes did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution because Fuentes did not show that any mistreatment was or would be on account of a protected ground. *See Sangha v. INS,*103 F.3d 1482, 1486-87 (9th Cir.1997). Specifically, Fuentes’ testimony that she had temporarily provided housing for a family member who is a police officer does not compel the conclusion that the threats and harassment by unidentified men were on account of an imputed political opinion, or that she would be targeted upon return to Peru on account of an imputed political opinion. *See Cruz-Navarro v. INS,*232 F.3d 1024, 1029-30 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that a police officer who had arrested members of *575the Sendero Luminoso was not imputed a political opinion solely because of his status as a police officer). Accordingly, Fuentes failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of deportation. *See Belayneh v. INS,*213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir.2000).

Fuentes’ argument that the BIA’s decision without opinion was improper is foreclosed by *Falcon Carriche,*350 F.3d at 849-52. *See Garcia-Martinez v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 1066, 1078-79 (9th Cir.2004) (applying *Falcon Carriche*in the asylum context).

Pursuant to *Elian v. Ashcroft,*370 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.2004) (order), petitioner’s voluntary departure period will begin to run upon issuance of this Court’s mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND STATEMENTS OF CASH
FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      11,748,000
<SECURITIES>                                15,194,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               37,994,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (2,561,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 21,760,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            93,259,000
<PP&E>                                      36,047,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (21,215,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             144,808,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       29,578,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 105,841,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               144,808,000
<SALES>                                    187,185,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           187,185,000
<CGS>                                      141,157,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               57,924,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               326,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,840,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (19,582,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (7,833,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (11,749,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,749,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.48)


</TABLE>