alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Office of Justice Programs

          - [OJP (NIJ) Docket No. 1678]

# AGENCY:

National Institute of Justice.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) announces publication of                         *Criminal Justice Restraints Standard,*                         NIJ Standard 1001.00. The document can be found here:                         *https://ncjrs.gov/​pdffiles1/​nij/​247988.pdf.*                         Conformity assessment organizations are invited to review the document and provide any feedback to the point of contact listed below. This standard is planned to supersede                         *NIJ Standard for Metallic Handcuffs,*                         NIJ Standard 0307.01, found here:                         *https://www.ncjrs.gov/​pdffiles1/​nij/​082981.pdf.*                         The effective date that this will occur will be given six months prior through a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                        . For more information about NIJ standards, please visit                         *http://nij.gov/​standards.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Brian Montgomery, by telephone at (202) 353-9786 [Note: this is not a toll-free telephone number], or by email at                         *brian.montgomery@usdoj.gov.*

William Sabol,

Acting Director, National Institute of Justice.

[FR Doc. 2014-27367 Filed 11-18-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
Article Ref: G-018

Measurement Matters, Vol. 11, Issue 4 October 2021 Page 1

NIST Handbook 143, Program Handbook for OWM 

Laboratory Recognition

Byline: Georgia Harris and Micheal Hicks

A draft of the 9th edition of NIST Handbook 143, Program Handbook (last published in 2019) has been 

posted for comments on the OWM website. You can download and review the document and submit 

comments via a Word comments document throughout the remainder of the year until December 31, 2021. 

Submitted comments should also include proposed language where necessary for suggested changes. The 

draft, comment form, and instructions for submitting comments can be found online here.

In addition to the proposed draft (in PDF), the prior and current publications of the technical content - as 

published - are also posted with a “track-change” version for your convenience in comparing prior, current, 

and proposed technical requirements. Please submit a separate comment form for reviewing the primary 

sections of the handbook, each appendix, and each annex. Significant technical discrepancies and/or 

disagreements will be reviewed by a working group made up of those who comment. Editorial comments 

will be resolved by OWM staff. 

Major changes to this draft document include the reincorporation of technical requirements into NIST 

Handbook 143 as annexes, using the same approach as NVLAP Handbook 150-2 rather than referencing 

each measurement parameter in the NVLAP criteria. This is being done to (1) consolidate all technical 

content with program criteria for state labs in one document based on feedback from laboratories and (2) 

ensure the most recent technical content is being used for state weights and measures laboratories. 

Several of the NVLAP annexes were adopted with very minor changes to ensure as much consistency as 

possible but with application additions appropriate for legal metrology. The mass and volume annexes 

proposed for NIST Handbook 143 have the most significant differences from the NVLAP criteria based on 

extensive comparisons of the NVLAP criteria, the Handbook 143 5th edition (2007) technical criteria, the 

latest content in the NIST Handbook 105 series, and review of OWM and other internationally accepted

documentary standards and calibration procedures. Final track-change versions will be submitted to 

NVLAP for their consideration in future updates to Handbook 150-2 in hopes of ensuring consistent 

requirements and laboratory evaluations.
NSRL Research Corpus Example data:

000/000/000000001	9AF318B4749D308A6366A18DF0A7802D83E50EEF      24842222	East-Tec Backup 2008/backupcd_300236741_etbackup_88c54859ab8d79ccf9769dd279e550e2.zip
000/000/000000002	6B5331F18FD5AE3B15FCDB50A2C59B2DA4BEAF60      6706104	East-Tec Eraser 2008/backupcd_300236740_eteraser_0b1f9898e76676e78ea608ffb4cf6f0d.zip/product/eteraser_licensed.exe
000/000/000000003	F253AF0E29C3A321C75F499F3600A38A3692443D      5906728	East-Tec Eraser 2008/backupcd_300236740_eteraser_0b1f9898e76676e78ea608ffb4cf6f0d.zip/trials/etdisposesecure_trial.exe
000/000/000000004	36844024A47BAD4D120E0034AA05CB173C86FA18      4939	East-Tec Backup 2008/backupcd_300236741_etbackup_88c54859ab8d79ccf9769dd279e550e2.zip/product/readme.txt
000/000/000000005	A0E2F68516EA3FD1B19501E5D25A375305A354F1      12102856	East-Tec Eraser 2008/backupcd_300236740_eteraser_0b1f9898e76676e78ea608ffb4cf6f0d.zip/trials/etbackup_trial.exe
000/000/000000006	A180F684D8D96068640F6C8CC00CFA3FD3CC55F9      94534	East-Tec Eraser 2008/backupcd_300236740_eteraser_0b1f9898e76676e78ea608ffb4cf6f0d.zip/cdmenu/header.jpg
000/000/000000007	FCC87FEB5E96FD7700B466E17D56ACD22091BEDC      3446	East-Tec Eraser 2008/backupcd_300236740_eteraser_0b1f9898e76676e78ea608ffb4cf6f0d.zip/cdmenu/eastlogo.gif
000/000/000000008	E0F6A452E7013B40AFA0072F243E7634FC374F63      1395	East-Tec Eraser 2008/backupcd_300236740_eteraser_0b1f9898e76676e78ea608ffb4cf6f0d.zip/cdmenu/cdmenu.css
000/000/000000009	7AAA4EB07991D20A2ABAD01784F8A8C97194C8C5      83068	East-Tec Eraser 2008/backupcd_300236740_eteraser_0b1f9898e76676e78ea608ffb4cf6f0d.zip/cdmenu/back.jpg
000/000/000000010	198F4F4324B6AD7E3CBF6C75902384DD72EFAD66      2480	East-Tec Backup 2008/backupcd_300236741_etbackup_88c54859ab8d79ccf9769dd279e550e2.zip/cdmenu.hta
**Exhibit 13.12**

 

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

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Leasing (Two) 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 toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-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 thePeriodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Date: 29 April 2009
U.S. Government Diversity 
The Sectors that underpin humanity 

The Sectors that need Government 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mitigating Risk = The Mission 

• 16 critical infrastructure (CI) sectors, whose assets, systems, and 

networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the 

United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a 

debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national 

public health or safety, or any combination thereof 

• 55 national critical functions (NCF) of government and the private 

sector so vital to the United States that their disruption, corruption, 

or dysfunction would have a debilitating effect on security, national 

economic security, national public health or safety, or any 

combination thereof
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

**[Letterhead of Wolf & Company, P.C.]**

 

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in SI Financial Group, Inc. Registration Statement Nos.333-119685 and 333-125659 on Forms S-8 of our report dated February 23, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statements of SI Financial Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and the year then ended appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K. 

/s/ Wolf & Company, P.C. 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 30, 2006
MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed July 29, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00420-CR

DANNY RAY TEMPLETON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-70535-I

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Fillmore, Evans, and Lewis

Opinion by Justice Lewis

Danny Ray Templeton appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for aggravated assault. 

In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court’s judgment should be modified to reflect the 

correct statute for the charged offense. The State agrees that the judgment should be modified as 

appellant requests. We modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified.

The trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt incorrectly identifies the statute for the 

offense as “481.115 Health and Safety Code.” Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault 

with a deadly weapon under section 22.02 of the Texas Penal Code. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011). Thus, the judgment is incorrect. We sustain appellant’s sole issue.
-2-

We further note the judgment incorrectly states that the degree of the offense is a state 

jail felony. Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is a second-degree felony offense. Id. 

§ 22.02(b). We modify the judgment adjudicating guilt to show the statute for the offense is 

“22.02(a) Penal Code” and the degree of the offense is “second-degree felony.” See TEX. R.

APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 

813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

140420F.U05

/David Lewis/

DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
-3-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

DANNY RAY TEMPLETON, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00420-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the Criminal District Court

No. 2 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F12-70535-I).

Opinion delivered by Justice Lewis, 

Justices Fillmore and Evans participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is 

MODIFIED as follows:

The section titled “Statute for Offense” is modified to show “22.02(a) Penal Code.”

The section titled “Degree” is modified to show “Second Degree Felony.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the judgment adjudicating guilt.

Judgment entered July 29, 2014.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel, are you 

a 

 Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:253
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer of GFI Group Inc.  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 GFI Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James A. Peers, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to the 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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.

|Date: February 29, 2008                                  |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ James A. PeersJames A. Peers
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
10095.

#### Arnold *v.*Mitchell.

Decided April 22, 1919.

Trover; from city court of Zebulon—Judge Dupree. August 31, 1918.

*James R. Davis,*for plaintiff in error. *James M. Smith,*contra.

Bloodwobth, J.

1. The grounds of the motion for a new trial that the court erred in allowing in evidence certain documentary evidence can not be considered, since the evidence referred to is not set forth either literally or in substance in' the motion or in an exhibit thereto. *Walton*v. Busby, 147 *Ga.*487 (94 S. E. 562) ; *Willbanks*v. *Byrd-Matthews Lumber Co.,*146 *Ga.*750 (3) (92 S. E. 281); *Bank of Norwood*v. *Chapman,*19 *Ga. App.*709 (3) (92 S. E. 225).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judgment is'

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
9812.

#### KENNEDY *v.*SMITH.

“],. Where one occupies land under a bond for title, builds thereon a dwelling-house, and subsequently (but before the entire purchase-price of the land has been paid) detaches the house from the land and attaches it to other land not belonging to the owner of the land upon which the house was first erected, and such owner brings an action in trover to recover the house, and his only way to show his title to the house, or his right of possession thereto, is by showing his title to the land upon which it was first built, this is not a ‘case respecting title to land.’ Proof of title in such a case can not-affect the ownership of the land. It is pertinent alone as a basis for the recovery of the chattel. Anything detached from the realty becomes personalty instantly. Civil Code, § 3622.

*725Decided May 13, 1919.

“2. An action of trover will lie to recover a dwelling-house which was detached from the land under circumstances as stated in the preceding headnote, although subsequently (but before the bringing of the suit) it was attached to the land of the wrong-doer. *Wood*v. *McCall,*67 *&a.*506; Michigan Mutual Life Ins. Co. *v.*Cronk, 93 Mich. 49 (52 N. W. 1035). See Ogden v. Stock, 34 Ill. 522 (85 Am. D. 332, and annotations).” *Kennedy*v. *Smith,*149 *Ga.*(99 S. E. 27).

3. Under these rulings the court did not err in overruling the motion to dismiss the action in 'trover, or in overruling the motion by ■ the defendant to dismiss the bond required of him.

4. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Trover; from Evans superior court—Judge Sheppard. March 35, 1918.

*W. B. Stubbs,*for plaintiff in error.

*M. A. Smith Jr., P. M. Anderson,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

Certain questions involved in this case were certified by this court to the Supreme Court, and the first and second headnotes contain the answers of that court. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial are without merit; the evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a, new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*
#### Coyett Deon JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN U.S. PENITENTIARY POLLOCK, also known as Carl Casterline, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-10726.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Jan. 13, 2005.

Coyett Deon Johnson, # 07403-064, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

*382Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Coyett Deon Johnson, federal prisoner # 07403-064, appeals from the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Johnson argues that the district court erred in determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

We review the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction *de novo. See Peoples Nat’l Bank v. Office of the Comptroller,*362 F.3d 333, 336 (5th Cir.2004). Johnson argues that his instant Oklahoma federal conviction was improperly enhanced based upon an invalid state conviction from Wichita County, Texas. Johnson concedes that he has discharged his sentence on the Wichita County conviction and that he was not successful in challenging this conviction on collateral review. *See Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss,*532 U.S. 394, 402, 121 S.Ct. 1567, 149 L.Ed.2d 608 (2001). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *See id.*The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 99.2









Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Management of Protective Life Insurance Company and The Bank of New York, as Indenture Trustee of Protective
Life Secured Trust 2004-27, (collectively the "Management")
and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee of Protective Life Secured Trust 2004-27 (the "Trust"):

We have examined Management's assertion, included in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)," that the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to the noteholders has occurred as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee during the year ended December 31, 2004.  Management is responsible for the assertion.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting management's assertion and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, Management's assertion referred to above is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria defined in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)."



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, AlabamaMarch 30, 2005











Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust
Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)





Management of the Trust asserts that it has collected payments on the funding agreements and distributed payments to the noteholders as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee for the year ended December 31, 2004.  This assertion is based on the following criteria:

1. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2004, are included in Protective Life's Secured Trusts P & I Payments: 1/1/04 through 12/31/04 (P & I Payments report).
2. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2004, are included in the Indenture Trustee's History of Transactions List.
3. The amounts due on the Notes are reported as a component of the charges from Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company, on the Indenture Trustee's Payment Obligation Report System (PORS Report).
4. Charges from Cede & Co. are included in the Indenture Trustee's screen prints titled The Depository Trust Company Activity History Details, which represent the charge confirmations to Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company.