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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6261

ROGER EARL COLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK PERRY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Joe L. Webster, Magistrate Judge. (1:17-cv-00008-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 31, 2017

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Earl Coley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roger Earl Coley seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order and 

recommendation denying Coley’s request for counsel and recommending the action be 

construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and dismissed without prejudice. This 

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and 

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order

Coley seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral 

order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Letter agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
  
 July 7, 2005 
  
 Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. 
 303 S. Technology Court 
 Broomfield, CO 80021 
 Attn: Board of Directors 
  
 Gentlemen: 
  
 I hereby resign, effective immediately, from my position as Chief Financial Officer of Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. (“Sirenza”) and
any other positions I may hold with Sirenza and any of its subsidiaries, other than the position of Special Assistant to the CEO, which I understand I have been appointed to today. 
  
 In addition, while I intend to continue to serve as Special Assistant to the CEO on an at-will basis for so long as Sirenza requests and at
my current salary of $8,653.85 per bi-weekly pay period in the interim, I hereby resign from that position as well, effective as of September 30, 2005. I understand that while I continue to serve as Special Assistant to the CEO, my outstanding
stock options will continue to vest monthly on their stated terms, and I will continue to have access to the Company’s standard employee benefits programs. 
  

These resignations are voluntary on my part and are motivated by my wish to relocate to California, and are not occasioned by any action taken by the Company or any
disagreement with the Company. 
  
 I understand and agree that each of these
resignations is a “Voluntary Termination” as defined in the Executive Employment Agreement effective August 1, 2003 (the “Agreement”) by and between myself and Sirenza, and I agree that notwithstanding anything to the
contrary in the Agreement, neither such resignations nor any related change in my duties and/or appointments by Sirenza to fill my vacated positions (whether occurring before or after the effective date of any such resignation) triggers any
payments, vesting or other severance benefits to me under the Agreement. 
  
 Please acknowledge your receipt of this letter and agreement to its terms by signing below. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  

	
	
	 /s/ Thomas J. Scannell

	 Thomas J. Scannell

	
	 Acknowledged and agreed:

	
	 Sirenza Microdevices, Inc.

	
	 /s/ Robert Van Buskirk

	 Robert Van Buskirk

	 Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,735
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,429
<PP&E>                                           7,479
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,798
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,428
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,298
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,548
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,428
<SALES>                                        101,648
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,648
<CGS>                                           75,014
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,014
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,981
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 312
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    310
<INCOME-TAX>                                       199
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                111
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       111
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               7
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      193
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          1
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   177
<PP&E>                                           5,991
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,016)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              446
<BONDS>                                          1,259
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,945
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,803)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,210
<SALES>                                            614
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   630
<CGS>                                              434
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   160
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  71
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (35)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (11)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (24)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (24)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
<FN>
<F1>(EPS-PRIMARY) DENOTES BASIC EPS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
As of: 9/16/21 10:53 AM 

Received: September 15, 2021 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. ktl-lOxi-7thj 

Comments Due: September 15, 2021 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: NIST-2021-0004 

Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework 

Comment On: NIST-2021-0004-0001 

Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework 

Document: NIST-2021-0004-DRAFT-0082 

Comment on FR Doc # 2021-1617 6 

Submitter Information 

Name: Juyang Weng 

Address: 

Okemos, MI, 48864 

Email: 

Phone: 

General Comment 

As an AI expert who initiated a direction called Autonomous Mental Development (AMD), I inform the 

US Government with the following three risks that the AI field is facing and two AI bottlenecks: 

Risk 1: Shallow fitting of Data. The ImageNet Competition 2012 is laudable to have attracted investments 

from companies like Google into neural networks, like Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and Long 

Short Time Memory (LSTM), trained by a gradient-based method such as error backprop for a shallow 

fitting of "big data". Such methods are both shallow and brute-force because data fitting is easy if a 

network has a huge number of parameters (see the nearest neighbor classifier in Att. 1). They do not 

generalize well if the networks are correctly tested (See Risk 2). 

http:/ /www.cse.msu.edu/~weng/research/2021-06-28-Report-to-Nature-specific-PSUTS. pdf 

Risk 2: Protocol flaws. There is a rarely reported stage in report generation called Post-Selections: After 

many networks have been trained only report the luckiest network. Specifically, Post-Selections are 

technically flawed protocols because of one or more of the following flaws: (1) a lack of cross-validation 

for the hand-picked partition between the training set and test set, (2) a flawed use of test sets (see, e.g., 

PubPeer posts about LeCun et al. Nature 2015, Graves et al. Nature 2016, Li Fei-Fei et al. PAMI 2006, 

and Fig. 1 of Att. 1 ), (3) a lack of verification of the random seed luck for initial weights of a network, ( 4) 

a lack of verification of the hyper parameter luck of a network architecture, ( 5) the Post-Selection stage is 

typically not reported, ( 6) not reporting many less lucky networks, (7) a use of much human labor to 

hand-tune architecture parameters to fit a static "big data" set, (8) Some AI Competitions (like ImageNet) 

were improperly managed thus leaving time for "cracking" test sets and not caring how much human 

interventions, computational resources and manpower each team used. 

Risk 3: "Big data" flaws. Pre-collected "big data" are wrong ( e.g., violation of sensorimotor recurrence,
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 Annual Report of SmartPros Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stanley P. Wirtheim, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

         A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.


/s/ STANLEY P. WIRTHEIM
---------------------------
Stanley P. Wirtheim
Chief Financial Officer

March 27, 2006
#### Mary Jane Stevens v. David Stevens.

*jDivorce for cruelty*— Mwmny,

Alimony was denied a wife upon affirming a decree of divorce obtained' by her for cruelty where circumstances appeared to lessen the degree-of Buffering which usually attends such injuries as she received and where it farther appeared that she had already received from her husband an amount'of property not very disproportionate to the amount of alimony which might otherwise have been allowed her.

Appeal from Berrien.

Submitted October 19.

Decided October 31.

Bill for divorce. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Qla/pj> cfo Fyfe*for complainant.

*N. A. Hamilton*for defendant.

Campbell, J.

Complainant was awarded a decree of' divorce against respondent for cruelty, but no alimony was-granted her. Both parties appeal.

Ve are not disposed to disturb the decree. The cruelty-was made out, but there were circumstances which indicate-that while in no way excusing respondent, they may fairly be considered as lessening the degree of suffering in mind, which usually attends such injuries as complainant received.. They also show that she has received a considerable amount, of property, not very disproportionate to what would be-given her if she had received nothing and were now granted alimony. We are satisfied that the circuit judge, who was-in a position to understand the merits of the witnesses, has-probably done substantial justice.

*505The decree must be affirmed, respondent paying taxable costs and disbursements as in ordinary causes.

The other Justices concurred.
(;+,%,7

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 197-9 Filed: 03/31/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:3702
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 197-9 Filed: 03/31/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:3703 Case: 1:19-cv-03195 Document #: 77 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1171
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 197-9 Filed: 03/31/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:3704 Case: 1:19-cv-03195 Document #: 77 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1172
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

HAROLD K. WALDMAN,

Petitioner

v.

BOROUGH OF FOX CHAPEL ZONING

HEARING BOARD AND BOROUGH OF

FOX CHAPEL AND JAMES AND CHRISTINE LUKETICH,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 98 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12th day of October, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements and the
Notes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-25-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1999
<CASH>                                          26,848
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,273
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,507
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               104,318
<PP&E>                                          17,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 159,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,134
<BONDS>                                        109,355
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           378
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   159,339
<SALES>                                        135,466
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,466
<CGS>                                          119,542
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,903
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,597
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,424
<INCOME-TAX>                                       344
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,080
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,080
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>The Company's equity is not publicly traded.
</FN>


</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of American Standard Companies Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frederic M. Poses, the Chief Executive 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/ Frederic M. Poses  
|Frederic M. Poses      
|Chief Executive Officer

August 2, 2007
My personal thoughts on NIST's CSF further back up previously made comments. I have looked into third 

party management extensively and noted there is a big discrepancy in knowledge of information 

security among vendors. This differing knowledge, especially that of a larger company that works with 

hundreds or thousands of vendors, can have a domino effect. As previously mentioned, vendor A must 

be aware of who their business partner vendor B is doing business with.

A previous comment also mentions they have used CSF with CIS Controls to develop a simpler set of 

controls, which I would say is necessary for smaller companies who lack the resources and guidance to 

secure information correctly. A CSF-Lite, per say, that would highlight the basic standards needed for a 

smaller enterprise who does not personally interact with a wide range of partnerships but interacts 

directly with another enterprise who does.

Devin Kiernan
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 Annual Report of BLACKWATER MIDSTREAM CORP. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the year ended MARCH 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald St.Pierre,
Chief Financial 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:




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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  June
      26, 2009By:
                        /S/ DONALD ST.PIERREDonald
      St.PierreChief
      Financial
Officer




1
#### Gottlieb Voltz v. George Grummett and Bostwick R. Noble.

*Specific performance*— Time *as an essential of the contract.*

*It seems*that even where time is made of the essence of a land-contract, a short delay in fulfilment after the time fixed will not necessarily defeat the right to specific performance.

Appeal from St. Clair.

Submitted October *17.*

Decided October 31.

Bill for specific performance, and to vacate a deed executed by defendant Grummett and wife to defendant Noble, and require said Noble to quit-claim the premises to Grummett. Defendant Noble appeals.

Affirmed.

*William A.*Mills, *Phillips da Yanoe*and *E. W. Ha/rris*for complainant.

Time cannot be made essential in a land contract merely by stipulating in the contract, if it would be unconscionable to allow it; *Richmond v. Robinson*12 Mich. 193; *Jaquith v. Hudson*5 Mich. 123; *Davis v. Freeman*10 Mich. 188 ; *Daily v. Litchfield*id. 29.

*454
      *A. B.*Avery, *W. Beach*and *John Divine*for defendants.

Parties to a contract have a right to make the time of performance material and where they have done so, a court of equity has no power to enforce its specific performance if the complainant has failed to perform his part of it at the stipulated time: *Stow v. Russell*36 Ill. 18 ; *Truesdail v. Ward*34 Mich. 117; *Hawley v. Jelly*25 Mich. 94; *Bomier v. Caldwell*8 Mich. 469; nor can equity interfere to compel a violation of an agreement nor compel a party to forego a legal right, nor prevent a party from enforcing a legal obligation: *McMurtrie v. Bennette*Har. Ch. 124.

Cooley, J.

The court of chancery decreed specific performance as prayed by complainant. He was in default in his payment but a few days, and there is not the slightest foundation for the argument made by the defense that he had abandoned the contract before tendering payment The most plausible objection to the decree is made upon the differences which are found to exist in the duplicate contracts which were received by the parties; that received by the vendor containing a provision that time should be of the essence of the contract, which was absent from the other. But we think complainant showed a clear right to specific performance under either copy.

The decree must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.