alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10142.

#### Griffin *et al. v.*Smith, solicitor.

Decided May 16, 1919.

Condemnation of vehicle conveying liquor; from city court of Carrollton—Judge Beall. September 34, 1918.

*Boykin & Boykin,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Willis Smith, solicitor,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. When proceedings to condemn an automobile are instituted under the provisions of section 20 of the act of the General Assembly of 1917 (Act Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 17), the owner of the car has'the right to intervene,—file a “defense.” *Bernstein*v. *Higginbotham,*148 *Ga.*110 (96 S. E. 1) ; *Gunn*v. *Atwell,*148 *Ga.*137 (96 S. E. 2).

2. Under proceedings such as are referred to above, the intervenor is not required to make affidavit and give bond as in claim cases. *Bernstein*v. *Higginbotham,*148 *Ga.*353 (96 S. E. 866).

3. Under the foregoing rulings the court erred in dismissing, “for the reason that no bond' or affidavit is made or given,” the “defense” filed in this case by L. H. Griffin, in which he alleged in part: “Your claimant further shows that the said automobile described in paragraph 1 is not ' the property of the .said Dave Cook, but is the lawful property of your claimant, and that your claimant did not know, nor consent, nor would he have allowed the said automobile to have been used, if the same was used, in conveying any liquor or beverage in this State, the sale or possession of which is prohibited by law, and that he had no knowledge that said Dave Cook -would use the automobile for any such purpose, and if he had he wbuld not have allowed it to be used, is [ ?] it was used”' (Dave Cook being the person having possession of the automobile when seized by the sheriff, and against whom the original proceedings were instituted).

4. The court having erred in striking the defense filed by L. H. Griffin, the further proceedings were nugatory. In this connection see *Whites*v. *State, 23 Ga. App.*174 (98 S. E. 171), and *Shrouder.*v. *Sweat,*148 *Ga.*376 (96 S. E. 81), both being proceedings to condemn automobiles for illegally transporting liquor. In the former case the owner had taken notes reserving title, and in the latter the note was secured by mortgage.

*Judgment reversed,.*

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



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 March 31, 2005 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. PosesFrederic M. PosesChief Executive Officer
 April 29, 2005
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3862 

To provide an automatic pay increase to any member of the Armed Forces 

who is deployed away from the member’s permanent station or, in the 

case of a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, the 

member’s home of record, once the deployment period exceeds 180 days 

of continuous duty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2004 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself, Ms. NORTON, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. 

KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́, Mr. 

SCOTT of Georgia, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. 

JEFFERSON, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. FROST, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. STARK, Mr. WALSH, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide an automatic pay increase to any member of 

the Armed Forces who is deployed away from the member’s permanent station or, in the case of a member 

of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, the member’s home of record, once the deployment period exceeds 

180 days of continuous duty. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3862 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Extended Deployment 

3 Pay Increase Act of 2004’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PAY INCREASE FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

5 FORCES SERVING DEPLOYMENTS IN EXCESS 

6 OF 180 DAYS. 

7 (a) EXTENDED DEPLOYMENT PAY INCREASE.—A 

8 member of the Armed Forces who completes a period of 

9 180 days of continuous duty on deployment away from 

10 the permanent station of the member or, in the case of 

11 a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, 

12 the home of record of the member, is entitled to an in13 crease in the rate of basic pay in the amount of $1000 

14 for each month thereafter during which the member con15 tinues such deployment. Once a member has satisfied the 

16 continuous duty requirement with respect to a deployment, 

17 the member is not required to resatisfy the continuous 

18 duty requirement for the same deployment despite any 

19 break thereafter in the continuity of the deployment due 

20 to authorized leave or other absence. 

21 (b) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—Duty performed in 

22 connection with a deployment underway as of the date of 

23 the enactment of this Act, but commenced before such 

24 date, shall be counted toward the 180-day period specified 

25 in subsection (a). In the case of a member who completed 

26 the required period of continuous duty before the date of 
3 

•HR 3862 IH 

1 the enactment of this Act, the entitlement to the increase 

2 in basic pay shall take effect on the first day of the first 

3 month beginning after the date of the enactment of this 

4 Act. 

Æ
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40068 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DANIEL ROLDAN-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-343-1

- - - - - - - - - - October 29, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Daniel Roldan-Cruz has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Roldan-Cruz has not responded to the motion. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 SEP-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                    OCT-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                             39,004,544
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                       8,394,888
<ALLOWANCES>                          100,000
<INVENTORY>                         4,776,423
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   56,976,625
<PP&E>                              7,045,834
<DEPRECIATION>                      1,832,005
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     62,979,198
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               5,266,713
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                               12,615
<OTHER-SE>                         52,908,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       62,979,198
<SALES>                             9,519,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    9,519,682
<CGS>                               3,971,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       3,971,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    2,964,009
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     3,245,892
<INCOME-TAX>                        1,195,642
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 2,050,430
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                        2,050,430
<EPS-BASIC>                               .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .15



</TABLE>
10050.

#### Easterling *v.*The State.

Decided November 20, 1918.

Accusation of possessing intoxicating liquor; from city court of Beidsville—Judge Collins. July 30, 1918.

*A. S. Way, H. H. Elders,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. L. Cowart, solicitor,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. The excerpt from the charge of the court, complained of in the motion for a new trial, contains a correct statement of the .law. If a fuller charge was desired an appropriate and timely written request should have been made therefor. “A correct statement, of the law applicable to the case is not erroneous because the court failed in the same connection to give the jury other and fuller instructions.” *Killian*v. *State,*19 *Ga. App.*750 (2) (92 S. E. 227) ; *Hill*v. *State,*18 *Ga. App.*259 (89 S. E. 351), and cases cited.

2. There was ample evidence to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.*
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 7, 2018

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00470- CR

LORENZA ANDRE SAM, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 434th Judicial District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10- DCR -055360A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant was convicted of capital murder in 2013. We affirmed his
conviction in 2016. Sam v. State , No. 14- 13 -00840-CR, 2016 WL 6134445 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 20, 2016, pet. ref’d).
On April 9, 2018, appellant, acting pro se, filed a document entitled, “Notice of Appeal and Request for Certificate of Appealability.” The words “In the Fifth Court Circuit Court of Appeals, New Orleans, Louisiana” are typed at the top of the document. The document is addressed to “Clerk of Court; Lyle Cayce.” According2

to the website for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, that court’s clerk is Lyle W. Cayce. The document contains a certificate of service in which appellant declares he mailed the document to “Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Clerk of Court Lyle Cayce, 600 Maestri P., New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3408” and that “an exact carbon-copy has been courtesy delivered by same to” this court.
The Fort Bend County District Clerk assigned this appeal to us on June 8, 2018. Since that time, the clerk’s record has been filed, and the trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant.
This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. We have already affirmed his
conviction on direct appeal. Further, it appears appellant did not intend to pursue his appeal in this court; rather, he was notifying this court of his intent to challenge our decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
On July 18, 2018, we notified appellant and his newly-appointed counsel, Kristen Jernigan, that we would dismiss the appeal unless any pa rty demonstrated , by July 30, 2018, meritorious grounds for retaining the appeal. No response h as been
filed.
The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Donovan, Wise, and Jewell Do Not Publish—Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Exhibit 31       Rule 13a-14(d) Certification



                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas G.  Lehmann,  a First Vice  President of  Washington  Mutual  Mortgage
Securities Corp., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of WaMu Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-AR6;

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 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 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 servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that
agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the 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 third parties acting as servicers
and sub-servicers:




None


Dated: March 29, 2005

                                     /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                     Thomas G. Lehmann
                                     First Vice President
Exhibit 32.2



                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, the undersigned  officer of Golden American
Life Insurance  Company (the "Company")  hereby certifies that, to the officer's
knowledge,  the Company's  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended
June 30, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) 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 10, 2003          By  /s/ Keith Gubbay
-----------------              -------------------------------------------------
      (Date)                   Keith Gubbay
                               President
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, A. Keith Wall certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Buffets Holdings, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 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 disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s Board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       /s/ A. Keith Wall     A. Keith Wall    Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)    Date: September 25, 2007
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ABC Corporation I et al, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS and 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806 

Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

Please Take Notice that on Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:00 PM, Defendant, Gyroory-US, 

by its counsel, shall appear by remote means, before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin, for the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and present Defendant’s Emergency Motion to 

Dissolve the Preliminary Injunctions. 

Date: 08/09/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju, Esq. 

GLACIER LAW PLLC 

200 E. Randolph Dr., Ste. 5100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Attorney for Defendants 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 355 Filed: 08/09/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:8203
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this August 9, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing file 

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and service was perfected on all counsel of record 

and interested parties through this system, which will deliver a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

documents via CM/ECF. 

Date: 08/09/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju, Esq. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 355 Filed: 08/09/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:8204
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       5,688,995
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,722,902
<PP&E>                                      45,580,310
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,082,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,220,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          527,522
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,374,641
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,220,863
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,927,213
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,379,053
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,548,160
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,548,160
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,548,160
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Commentary on ‘Known Vulnerabilities’ 

By Eric Hill, Synopsys 

Discussion 

Synopsys’ software verification suite (Black Duck, Coverity, Seeker, Defensics & Code DX ) offers SCA, 

SAST, IAST, DAST and ASOC capabilities. Experience in the field has afforded the company an industry 

wide perspective on software verification best practices in managing defects while maintaining software 

development velocity. 

It is noticed that the phrase “known vulnerabilities” is utilized several times in the “DRAFT Baseline Criteria 

for Consumer Software Cybersecurity Labeling”. The key attestation noted is to declare software “Free 

from Known Vulnerabilities”. 

EO14028 has resulted in software verification 

software and practices being rapidly & widely adopted. 

There is confusion in industry as to what constitutes a 

CVE versus a CWE (see diagram). Reported 

vulnerabilities (ie. ‘known’ publicly) will have been 

entered in the National Vulnerability database & can be 

mapped to 1 or more CWE’s. Our goal in applying 

software verification as a practice, and current 

patterns offer a Software Factory configuration, is to 

apply CWE avoidance in releasing software. Thus, 

DevSecOps teams lower the risk of CVE’s being 

reported in the future against their released software. 

Recommendation 

Consider being more precise via a simple definition of ‘known vulnerabilities’ using the terms CVEs with an 

additional note to include ‘CWEs that are weaknesses that represent sources for future exploitable 

vulnerabilities.’ 

© 2021 Synopsys, Inc. 1
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00423

- CR

DAVID DIAZ A/K/A DAVID RAY DIAZ JR.

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR16000646

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, ha ving considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. March 23, 2023