alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-20611

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARTIN MIRANDA-JUAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-236-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Martin MirandaJuarez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Miranda-Juarez has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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

July 9, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-20611 Document: 00514545696 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2018
No. 17-20611

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-20611 Document: 00514545696 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2018
IoT Ad visory Board

D EBBI E R EYN O LD S

DATA + PRIVAC Y + TEC HN O LO G Y

J AN UARY 1 8 , 2 0 2 3
DATA C REATED O VER TH E 

N EX T TH R EE YEA R S W I LL BE 

M O RE TH AN TH E DATA 

C REATED O VER TH E P AS T 

3 0 YEARS

(IDC EX EC UTIVE S UM M ARY- I D C ' S G LO BA L D A TA S P H ER E FO R EC A S T 2 0 2 0 )
IOT IN C REASE +

• 3 1 BI LLI O N I N 2 0 2 0 

• 3 5 BI LLI O N I N 2 0 2 1 

• 7 5 BI LLI O N I N 2 0 2 5 

(H TTP S :/ / W W W . S TATIS TA. C O M / S TATIS TIC S / 4 7 1 2 6 4 / IO T- N UM BER- O F - C O N N EC TED - DEVIC ES - W O R LD W I D E/ )
TH E AM O UN T O F DATA 

G EN ERATED BY IO T 

DEVIC ES IS EX P EC TED TO 

REAC H 7 3 .1 ZB 

(ZETTABYTES ) BY 2 0 2 5 .

(S O URC E: DATAP RO T)
IO T DEVIC ES ARE 

TYP I C A LLY A TTA C K ED 

W ITH IN FIVE M IN UTES O F 

C O N N EC TIN G TO TH E 

IN TERN ET

( N ETS C O UT TH R EA T I N TELLI G EN C E R EP O R T)
1 2 8 O UT O F 1 9 4 

C O UN TRIES H AVE 

LEG I S LA TI O N TO P R O TEC T 

DATA AN D P RIVAC Y. 

UN I TED N A TI O N S C O N FER EN C E O N TR A D E A N D D EV ELO P M EN T ( UN C TA D )
1 0 %: SHARE OF US 

C O M P A N I ES A C TI V ELY 

W O R K I N G TO C O M P LY 

W ITH 5 0 O R M O RE P RIVAC Y 

LA W S

S O URC E: IAP P AN D TRUS TARC REP O RT
7 4 % O F G LO BA L 

C O N S UM ERS W O RRY 

A BO UT LO S I N G TH EI R C I V I L 

RIG H TS BEC AUS E O F IO T.

(EIU)
DATA PRIVACY 

CHALLENGES

DATA 

RETEN TIO N

DATA 

C O LLEC TI O N

1 2
ADDITIONAL 

IOT

CONCERNS

USE OF AI

BIAS

I N TER O P ER BI LI TY

A C C ES S TO A LL
AREAS OF FOCUS

DATA 

TEC H N O LG Y 

D EV ELO P M EN T

P RIVAC Y BY 

DESIGN

TEC H N O LO G Y 

ADO P TIO N

EDUC ATIO N
IDEAS TO KEEP IN MIND

1

BE 

S TRATEG IC 

N O T 

TAC TIC AL

2

BE 

P R O AC TIVE

NOT

REAC TIVE

3

A RTI C ULA TE 

TH E 

HARM

N O T 

J UST

LA W 

O R S TAN DARD

4

AN TIC IP ATE 

TH E 

FUTURE

NOT

J US T 

TH E 

PRESEN T
AREAS 

OF 

CONTRIBUTION

S M ART C ITIES & BUS IN ES S 

US ES O F IO T 

C O N S UM ER US ES O F IO T 

AN D EDUC ATIO N

H UM AN C EN TRIC IO T US ES 

AN D O P P O RTUN ITIES

US R EG ULA TO R Y

& 

I N TER N A TI O N A L M A TTER S
IOT

AREAS 

TO ADDRESS

IN N O VATIO N

C YBERS EC URITY

DATA P RIVAC Y

TRUS T

LEA D ER S H I P
THANK YOU

DEBBIE REYNOLDS

DEBBIE REYNOLDS CONSULTING, LLC

CEO, CHIEF DATA PRIVACY OFFICER & TECHNOLOGISTS

HTTPS:/ / WWW.DEBBIEREYNOLDSCONSULTING.COM

DATADIVA@DEBBIEREYNOLDSCONSULTING.COM
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

March 4, 2013

s0225

Order 

March 4, 2013

146123

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146123

COA: 305553

Oakland CC: 2011-235798-FC

MARK WAYNE ARNETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 11, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

VIVIANO, J., not participating.
Exhibit 31
                                  ----------


                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------

        I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

        1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
        Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in
        respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report,
        of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2004-10CB;

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

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

        5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
        master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards
        based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
        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: The
        Bank of New York, as Trustee.

        Date: March 29, 2005

                                  /s/ Steve Bailey
                                  ----------------
                                  Steve Bailey
                                  Senior Managing Director
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Dale B. Smith,certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mueller Group, LLC;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period(s) covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         [Reserved]

(c)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)         Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 19,2005

|        |   | /s/ DALE B.  SMITH        |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |   | Name: Dale B. Smith            |
|   |   | Title: Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4009

For the relief of Thomas W. Sikes and Wellington Trade, Inc., doing business 

as Containerhouse. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2004

Mr. NORWOOD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Thomas W. Sikes and Wellington Trade, 

Inc., doing business as Containerhouse.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

5 shall pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 

6 appropriated, $1,500,000 to the persons named in sub7 section (b) for damages sustained by such persons in con8 nection with a 1991 government contract for the purchase 

9 and delivery of certain ocean freight containers. 
2

•HR 4009 IH 

1 (b) PERSONS TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION.—The 

2 Secretary of the Treasury shall compensate the following 

3 persons under subsection (a): 

4 (1) Thomas W. Sikes of Cadwell, Georgia. 

5 (2) Wellington Trade Inc., of Cornelia, Georgia, 

6 doing business as Containerhouse. 

7 SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED 

8 STATES. 

9 Payment under section 1 shall constitute full settle10 ment of all legal and equitable claims by the persons 

11 named in section 1(b) against the United States for the 

12 damages described in section 1(a). 

13 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEY AND AGENT FEES. 

14 Not more than 10 percent of the payment made 

15 under section 1 may be paid to or received by an agent 

16 or attorney as consideration for any service rendered in 

17 connection with this Act. Each violation of this section is 

18 punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.

Æ
Video Challenge Problem Multiple  Biometric  Grand  Challenge Multiple Biometric Grand Challenge 

Preliminary Results of Version 1 05 December 2008 

Goals and Motivations • Operational environment

– Recognition from video.– Unconstrained illumination.– Unconstrained movement / pose.

Meet the Data 

• Two different mediums of video.– High definition video (1440 x 1080)– Standard definition video (720 x 480)

Meet the Data 

• Walking Walking  footagefootage– Subject walks towards camera.

• Activity footage– Non-frontal footage of subject performing an

activityactivity.

•   Footage taken concurrently   in both  standardFootage taken concurrently in both standard definition and high definition.

Video Challenge Breakout 

• Walking  vs Walking Walking vs. Walking – Both formats

• Walking vs. Activity– Both  formatsBoth formats 

•  Activity vs ActivityActivity vs. Activity – Both formats

Video Challenge Submissions 

Lockheed Martin FF 

L-1 Identity Solutions AG GG 

Pittsburgh Pattern Recognition II 

SAGEM DD 

OO rganii zatii on LL egendd 

Walking vs. Walking High Definition Video 

197 sequences 

High Definition Video 

197 sequences 

Standard Definition

202 sequences 

 Standard Definition 

202 sequences 

High Definition ROC 

Results from an Open Book Challenge  Problem, NOT an Independent Evaluation 

Standard Definition ROC 

Results from an Open Book Challenge  Problem, NOT an Independent Evaluation 

Summary Bar Graph Plotted at FAR = 0.01 

Results from an Open Book Challenge  Problem, NOT an Independent Evaluation 

Walking vs. Activity Walking 

399 sequences 

Activity 

371 sequences 

ActiviiA i  ty 

371 sequences 

Walking 

399 sequences 

Experiment uses both high definition and standard definition. 

Walking vs. Activity ROC 

Results from an Open Book Challenge  Problem, NOT an Independent Evaluation 

Activity vs. Activity High Definition Video High Definition Video 

Standard Definition Standard Definition 

Experiment uses both high definition and standard definition. 

Activity vs. Activity ROC 

Results from an Open Book Challenge  Problem, NOT an Independent Evaluation 

Conclusions 

• Performance  w  as better    on high definitionPerformance was better on high definition than standard definition.

• Highlights new challenges.

• Algorithms cannot handle non-frontal activity.

Next steps experiment: 

Target Query 

ConversationConversation WW aalkinglking
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 20, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00092

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.E., JR., ET AL., CHILDREN

,

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- PA

- 00722 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating parental rights. Appointed counsel for one of the two appellants (Tommi Jo) filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious is sues to raise on appeal

. On April 3, 2014, this court

informed appellant that if she desired to file her own brief, she must do so by May 5, 2014. On May 2, 2014, appellant requested an extension of time, which was granted until May 15, 2014. Our order cautioned appellant that no further extensions of time would be granted.

On May 14, 2014, appellant filed a pro se motion asking for appointment of new counsel on appeal. The motion is DENIED. On May 15, 2013, appellant requested an extension of time in which to

file her brief. That motion is GRANTED.

Because the State’s brief in response to another appellant’s brief is not due until May 27, 2014, we will grant Tommi Jo additional in which to file her own brief and her brief is due no later than May
27, 2014

. No further extensions of additional time will be granted and if Tommi Jo does not file her own brief by May 27, 2014, this appeal will be set at issue without benefit of her brief.

I t is so ORDERED on May 20, 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

June 21, 2018

No. 16-3127

ALAN J. ROSS;

ALAN J. ROSS INSURANCE AGENCY INC.

 

v.

BENNETT MEYER; MEYER-CHATFIELD CORP.; 

DAVID L. BRAVERMAN; JOHN E. KASKEY; 

BRAVERMAN KASKEY PC

 (D.C. No. 2-12-cv-00998)

MEYER-CHATFIELD CORPORATION;

BENNETT S. MEYER;

ZCRACKERBOX, LLC;

BRAVERMAN KASKEY, P.C.

v.

ALAN J. ROSS individually d/b/a SAVE ASSOCIATES;

ALAN J. ROSS INSURANCE AGENCY INC.

d/b/a SAVE ASSOCIATES

Alan J. Ross,

 Appellant

 (E. D. Pa. Nos. 2-12-cv-00998 & 2-12-cv-02760)

Present: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and ROTH, Circuit Judges

Motion by Appellant to Clarify Opinion and Judgment dated June 7, 2018

Respectfully,

Clerk/dwb
_________________________________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing motion to clarify is granted. An amended opinion will be filed. The 

amended opinion only clarifies the Court’s decision and does not alter the Court’s 

disposition of the case. As such, the judgment originally entered on June 7, 2018 will not 

be altered.

By the Court,

s/L. Felipe Restrepo

Circuit Judge

Dated: July 6, 2018

DWB/arr/cc: AJS; DLB; BAG
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.F., A MINOR

PETITION OF: V.R., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 315 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.N.F., A MINOR

PETITION OF: V.R., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 316 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                          1,000,000

<CURRENCY>                                         U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                               1
<CASH>                                                       46

<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             1,196

<ALLOWANCES>                                                 37
<INVENTORY>                                                 545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          1,892
<PP&E>                                                    1,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                              597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            4,795
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     2,415
<BONDS>                                                   1,914
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                      1
<OTHER-SE>                                                (500)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              4,795
<SALES>                                                   3,610
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          3,610
<CGS>                                                     2,675
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             2,675
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            (4)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             10

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           93
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             234
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 97
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         137
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                137
<EPS-BASIC>                                              1.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              1.89



</TABLE>
SCWC

- 17

- 0000815

IN THE SUPR E ME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

________________________________________________________________ ______________ BIG ISLAND FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Petitioner/Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

vs.

WILFRED E. AGUIAR , JR., Respondent/Defendant

- Appellee, and COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, Respondent/Garnishee

- Appellee

.

________________________________________________________________

CE RTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS ( CAAP

- 17

- 0000815; C IV. NO. 3RC16

- 1

- 0329)

ORDER DISMISS ING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

It is hereby ordered that the application for certiorari is

dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, January 3, 2023

. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-17-0000815 03-JAN-2023 10:52 AM Dkt. 5 ODSAC