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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6457

JOHN DAVID SIMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, in his individual and official capacity as the Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections; DONALD GUILLORY, in

his individual and official capacity as Warden

of Powhatan Correctional Facility in the State

of Virginia; LARRY JARVIS, in his individual

capacity as Assistant Warden of the Powhatan

Correctional Facility in the State of Virginia; CECIL N. LEWIS, in his individual capacity

as Chief of Security at the Powhatan Correctional Facility in the State of Virginia;

LORETTA K. KELLY, in her individual capacity

as Assistant Warden of Programs (AWP) at the

Powhatan Correctional Facility in the State of

Virginia; MARCIA ORNELAS, in her individual

capacity as designated Grievance Coordinator

at the Powhatan Correctional Facility in the

State of Virginia; KENNETH SUTTON, in his

individual capacity as Personal Property Officer at the Powhatan Correctional Facility in

the State of Virginia,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District

Judge. (CA-94-1081-2)

Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997
2

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John David Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

John David Simpson appeals the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Simpson v. Angelone, No. CA-94-1081-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 28,

1996). We deny Appellant's motion for 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

May 26, 2020

b0518 

# Order

Clerk May 26, 2020

160028

RUTH BARRIGER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 160028

COA: 339317

Wayne CC: 16

- 006535

- NO

BON

- TON DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.,

d/b/a CARSON’S,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2019 judgment

of the Court of Appeals is considere d, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 21.1

QC Holdings, Inc.

A Kansas corporation



|                                               |  |                              
|---------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiaries (1)                               |  | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation
|                                               | 
|QC Financial Services, Inc.                    |  | Missouri                     
|                                               | 
|QC Properties, LLC (2)                         |  | Kansas                       
|                                               | 
|QC Financial Services of California, Inc. (2)  |  | California                   
|                                               | 
|QC Financial Services of Texas, Inc. (2)       |  | Kansas                       
|                                               | 
|Financial Services of North Carolina, Inc. (2) |  | Delaware                     
|                                               | 
|QC Advance, Inc. (2)                           |  | Missouri                     
|                                               | 
|Cash Title Loans, Inc. (2)                     |  | Missouri                     

---

|(1) | All subsidiaries are 100% owned.
|--- | --------------------------------

|(2) | Subsidiary of QC Financial Services, Inc.
|--- | -----------------------------------------
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 December 20, 2019

s1217

Order 

Clerk

December 20, 2019

160532

SC: 160532

In re DEAN, Minors. COA: 347946

Leelanau CC Family Division:

 15-009603-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 15, 2019 

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.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 8937]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “The Winchester Bible: A Masterpiece of Medieval Art,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about December 9, 2014, until on or about March 8, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: October 24, 2014. 

Kelly Keiderling,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2014-26280 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 17:05:16 Eastern Daylight Time 

Subject: IEEE comments on NIST White Paper: Four Principles of Explainable Ar=ficial Intelligence 

Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 2:54:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time 

From: Kris=n LiNle 

To: NIST Explainable AI 

CC: Karen McCabe 

AGachments: DraP-NISTIR8312-IEEE SA Comments.xlsx 

IEEE is pleased to provide comments on the NIST white paper, Four Principles of Explainable Ar=ficial Intelligence. 

ANached is input we hope will help NIST in its work to characterize the diverse methods, applica=ons, and 

perspec=ves on explainable AI. We commend NIST for its efforts to help develop trustworthy AI systems. 

The IEEE Standards Associa=on (IEEE-SA), a globally recognized standards-se\ng body within IEEE, develops 

consensus standards through an open process that engages industry and brings together a broad stakeholder 

community. IEEE standards set specifica=ons and best prac=ces based on current scien=fic and technological 

knowledge. IEEE-SA has a por]olio of over 1500 ac=ve standards and projects in development, including a series of 

technical and impact standards rela=ve to Ar=ficial Intelligence Systems. 

IEEE-USA represents approximately 200,000 engineers, scien=sts, and allied professionals living and working in the 

US. Our members work in the new AI-related industries, developing and working with the emerging technologies 

used in ar=ficial intelligence systems. This exper=se provides us with a unique perspec=ve on the benefits of these 

technologies. 

Best regards, 

Karen McCabe 

Senior Director, Public Affairs and Marke=ng 

IEEE Standards Associa=on 

445 Hoes Lane 

Piscataway, NJ 08855 USA 

Office: 

Mobile: 

Page 1 of 1
| **Exhibit 32.2** |
|------------------|

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

| November 9, 2005 | By:    | /s/              Harry N. Stout |   |
|------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| (Date)

    |   | Harry N. Stout

President                                                                        |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leroy Maurice DEVEAUX, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-7429.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 8, 2004.

Decided Dec. 29, 2004.

Leroy Maurice DeVeaux, Appellant pro se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Leroy Maurice DeVeaux seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that De-Veaux 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
INTERIM STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10 QSB FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                         164,632
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  479,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    186,856
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,135,424
<PP&E>                                       1,748,996
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,221,601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,861,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,044,350
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           383
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,709,965
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,861,982
<SALES>                                        605,592
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               605,592
<CGS>                                          379,478
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  379,478
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,104,763
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             145,226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,023,875)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,023,875)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,023,875)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ELLEN AGUIAR,

Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM NATBONY, as Trustee of the Thomas Kaplan 2004 Annuity 

Family Trust, which is the successor to the Thomas Kaplan 2004 TenYear Grantor Retained Annuity Trust,

ADRIANA AGUIAR, and JANNAI AGUIAR,

Appellees.

No. 4D17-3816 

[June 28, 2018]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Mark A. Speiser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

PR-C-16-0001647.

Scott A. Weiss and R. Daniel Sirosi of Scott A. Weiss, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

Mindy Lee Pallot and Brian J. Stack of Stack Fernandez & Harris, P.A., 

Miami, for appellee William Natbony, as Trustee, etc.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### James WARE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Michael T. MALONEY, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner, Souza Baranowski Correctional Center, et al., Defendants, Appellees.

No. 04-1487.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Decided Jan. 14, 2005.

*776James Ware on brief pro se.

Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and Margaret Melville, Department of Correction, on brief for appellees.

Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge, and SELYA, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

*Pro se*inmate James Ware appeals a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant prison officials based on Ware’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We affirm, adding only the following comments.1

First, Ware has not shown that the district court erred in failing to find that defendants waived the exhaustion requirement. Defendants raised a failure-to-exhaust defense in their answer and in a renewed motion for summary judgment. Ware did not assert any prejudice, nor do we perceive any, as he was on notice of the exhaustion requirement and had ample time to oppose the renewed summary judgment motion. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the defendants’ failure-to-exhaust defense. *See Guzman-Rivera v. Rivera-Cruz,*98 F.3d 664, 668 (1st Cir.1996) (holding that decision on waiver of affirmative defense normally is within district court’s discretion).

Also, Ware has not shown that the district court erred in finding that Ware had not exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the three grievances at issue. We have considered Ware’s arguments and deem them without merit.2

Ware’s motion for a procedural order is *denied.*

The judgment of the district court is summarily *affirmed. See*Loe. R. 27(c).

1

. The district court’s earlier grant of partial summary judgment for defendants is not properly before us, as Ware does not present any developed argumentation regarding that earlier decision. *See United States v. Zannino,*895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.1990) (noting that failure to present argument on issue waives challenge to it).

2

. In view of this conclusion, we need not address defendants’ separate contention that the district court's order may be affirmed based on defendants’ qualified immunity.
Approaches for Matcher 

Performance Modeling   

V. N. Dvornychenko  M. Indovina    

G. W.  Quinn   J. C. Wu

 NIST 
Modeling 

Why Needed 

• Effec1ve design of matcher tests 

requires understanding the likely 

outcomes 

• If the database/background/ 

 repository is greatly increased, 

what will be the resul1ng 

performance 

• Increasing the candidate list 

length means more human effort 

for adjudica1on  — what is most 

cost‐effec1ve length? 
Approach 

Compare/contrast four approaches: 

• 1‐Based on a direct fit of the 

matching scores 

• 2‐Assume “plausible” forms for 

matching score distribu1ons; 

derive candidate OC and CMC 

from these; fit OC/CMC using 

experimental data 

• 3‐Employ self‐similarity/scalability 

arguments to derive general 

proper1es — these arguments do 

not rely on score distribu1ons 

• 4‐Use intrinsic/natural score to 

derive distribu1ons 

• Lack of space precludes a detailed 

descrip1on of methods – poster 

does not cover method 4 

SoluJon‐space for various 

approaches and their common 

intersecJon 

Approach 2 

Approach 1 

Approach 3  “Fixed‐point SoluJons” 

– soluJons encountered  

  with all approaches 

Approach 4
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Quarterly Report of American Standard Companies Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, G. Peter DAloia, Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company hereby 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report. /s/ G. Peter DAloiaG. Peter DAloiaSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 April 29, 2005
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Innovative Solutions and Support, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the 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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|--------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/    GEOFFREY    S. M. HEDRICK                                   |         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                             |                                       |
| **Geoffrey          S. M. Hedrick****Chairman of the    Board and Chief Executive Officer** |                                       |

| August 11, 2004                                                       |                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                                                                  |                     |
| /s/    JAMES    J. REILLY     |      |
|                                                                       |                     |
| **James          J. Reilly****Chief Financial    Officer**            |                     |

August 11, 2004

----