alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

TGDC Meeting Agenda

July 26 – 27, 2011

Portrait Room, NIST Building 101

July 26, 2011

Pledge of Allegiance

8:30 – 9:00 AM – Opening Remarks - Pat Gallagher, NIST, Donetta Davidson, EAC

9:00 - 9:15 AM – Overview of Meeting Agenda and Review of January 2011 Meeting 

Resolutions - Belinda Collins, NIST

9:15 – 10:15 AM – Update from EAC 

Recent Roundtable Meetings

Update on Accessibility Grants Program

Address Resolutions from January 2011 

Standards Board and Advisory Board Updates 

10:15 – 10:30 AM – BREAK

HAVA Related Activities

10:30 – 11:30 AM -- Status of VVSG 1.1 and VVSG 2.0 – EAC & NIST

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines Roadmap/Timeline – Nelson Hastings, 

NIST

Review of VVSG 1.1 – Nelson Hastings, NIST

VVSG 1.1 Reliability – David Flater, NIST

Update on VVSG Test Suites – Mary Brady, NIST

11:30 – 12:30 PM – LUNCH

12:30 – 1:00 PM – Continued discussion of VVSG 1.1 and VVSG 2.0 – EAC & NIST
2

1:00 – 2:15 PM – New Research for HAVA –

1:00 – 1:15 PM – Usability and Accessibility Test Methods: Preliminary 

Findings on Validation – Sharon Laskowski, NIST

1:15 – 2:30 PM -- Software Assurance in Voting – Mike Kass, NIST

2:30 – 2:45 PM – Marginal Marks Research Update– David Flater, NIST

2:45 – 3:00 PM – BREAK

Applications Working Group Activities

3:00 – 3:45 PM – IEEE P.1622 Working Group Update and Presentation of Draft IEEE 

P.1622 Use Case for Electronic Blank Ballot Distribution – John Wack, NIST

3:45 – 4:15– Next Steps on a Common Data Format – Ian Piper, Dominion Voting, John 

Wack, NIST

4:15 – 4:45 PM – Public Comment Period & Additional Resolutions

July 27, 2011

UOCAVA Related Activities

8:30 – 8:45 AM – UOCAVA Roadmap Update – Nelson Hastings, NIST

8:45 – 9:30 AM – Update from FVAP – Bob Carey, FVAP

9:30 – 10:30 AM --Update on UOCAVA Working Group - Andrew Regenscheid, NIST

Presentation of Draft High-Level Guidelines for UOCAVA Voting Systems

o Discussion of Verifiability guidelines –David Wagner, TGDC Member

o Vote for acceptance or path forward

10:30 – 10:45 AM – BREAK

10:45 – 11:30 PM – Continuation of UOCAVA Working Group discussion -- Andrew 

Regenscheid, NIST

Status update on Draft Guidelines for Pilot Demonstration Project for Military 

Voters
3

11:30 - 12:30 PM – LUNCH 

12:30 – 1:00 PM – Continuation of UOCAVA Working Group discussion -- Andrew 

Regenscheid, NIST

1:00 – 1:30 PM – Status of EAC UOCAVA documents – Brian Hancock, EAC

1:30 – 2:15 PM -- UOCAVA Experiences: An Election Official’s Perspective – Helen 

Purcell, TGDC Member 

2:15 – 2:30 PM – BREAK

2:30 – 4:00 PM – New Resolutions

4:00 – 4:30 PM – Next TGDC Meeting

Confirm next date: December 15 – 16, 2011

Topics for further discussion
#### Chas. Osborn *v.*J. H. Hereford.

Ejectment — Boundary—Question for Jury.

Whether certain, land is embraced in a boundary recited by tbe evidence of title is a question for tbe jury, and tbe court should instruct that if the patents and deeds in the chain of title down to plaintiff included the land in controversy, the finding should he for plaintiff, unless the defense of adverse possession is sustained by the proof.

Ejectment — Defense—Adverse possession — Instruction.

Where the defense is title by adverse possession, an instruction “that the claim of possession must be to a well-defined marked, boundary” is erroneous, as a natural boundary may exist and control in such a case.

APPEAL FROM FLOYD CIRCUIT COURT.

December 15, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

We perceive no1 objection to' the introduction of the patents and deed, by the appellees, for the purpose of establishing their title to the land in question. Whether or not this land was embraced by the boundaries recited in the written evidences of title is a question of. fact for the jury, and the court bplow erred in telling the jury “that the plaintiff has shown a paper title for the land in dispute and they should find it the property of the plaintiffs.” The court not only admits the patent and deeds as evidence to which there could have been no objection, but proceeds to say to' the jury that these writings make out a perfect title in the plaintiffs, and authorizes a recovery unless bound by an adverse possession on the part of the appellant. The court should have said to the jury that if the patent to May and the deeds from May to May and from May to Osborn, etc., reciting them' on down the plaintiff, included the land in controversy they must find for the plaintiff unless the defense relied on is sustained by the proof. The defense is an alleged adverse holding on the part of the appellant, and the instruction on the question of adverse possession is also objectionable in this: “The jury are told that the claim of possession must be to a *111well defined marked boundary.” A natural boundary may exist and control in a case like this, as well as a marked boundary and if the defendants and those under whom they claim were in possession of, and claiming this land to a fixed and defined boundary, whether marked by the surveyor or ascertained by natural objects from more than fifteen years prior to1 the institution of plaintiff’s action, it presents such a defense as should go to the jury upon the issue made. For the reasons indicated the judgment is reversed and cause remanded with directions to award the appellant a new trial and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*Apperson, J. R. Boits, for appellant.*

*Hereford, for appellee.*
**Exhibit 32**

 

**NETTIME SOLUTIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

 

**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 on Form 10-QSB of NETtime Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Bahan Sadegh, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas J. Klitzke, Vice President - Finance and Administration and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.

 
| By:    | /s/ Bahan Sadegh                      |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Bahan Sadegh                          |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | November 14, 2007                     |

 
| By:    | /s/ Thomas J. Klitzke                                                        |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas J. Klitzke                                                            |
|   | Vice President - Finance and Administration and Principal Accounting Officer |
|   | November 14, 2007                                                            |
Amendment dated November 8, 2005



 Exhibit 10.8 
  
 AMENDMENT 
  
 TO 
  
 SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT dated November 8, 2005 
  
 Amendment To Securities Purchase Agreement (this “Amendment”) dated as of November 8, 2005, between AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and TECORE, INC. and SCP PRIVATE EQUITY PARTNERS II, L.P. (collectively, the “Purchasers”). 
  
 Whereas, the parties have entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of June 5, 2003 (the
“Agreement”); and 
  
 Whereas, the Company is
entering into a Security Agreement of even date herewith with Laurus Master Fund, Ltd. (“Laurus”), pursuant to which Laurus is making certain loans to the Company as described therein (the “Laurus Facility”); and 
  
 Whereas, it is a condition to the Purchasers’ consenting to the
Laurus Facility that the Company amend this Agreement to provide for a cross-default if there is an event of default under the Laurus Facility. 
  
 Now therefore, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained in this Amendment, the parties agree as follows: 
  
 1. Section 10(c) of the Agreement shall be amended in its entirety as
follows: 
  
 “(c) (i) an Event of Default shall occur
under the Security Purchase Agreement date as of November 4, 2005 between the Company and Laurus Master Fund, Ltd. or (ii) AIRNET shall default in the payment of any principal of, or premium, if any, or interest on, any other indebtedness
in excess of $250,000 or obligation with respect to borrowed money after expiration of any grace or cure period or shall default in the performance of any material term of any instrument evidencing such Indebtedness or of any mortgage, indenture or
agreement relating thereto after expiration of any grace or cure period, and in the case of each of (i) and (ii), the effect of such default is to cause or to permit the holder or holders of such obligation to cause, such Indebtedness or
obligation to become due and payable prior to its stated maturity; or” 
  
 2. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 3. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Agreement. 
  
 4. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.

  

			
	COMPANY:
	
	AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	  


	Name:	 	 
	Title:	 	 
	
	PURCHASERS:
	
	TECORE, INC.
		
	By:	 	  


	Name:	 	 
	Title:	 	 
	
	SCP PRIVATE EQUITY PARTNERS II, L.P.
		
	By:	 	  


	Name:	 	 
	Title:	 	 


  

 - 2 -
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

November 20, 2012

s1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145481 & (19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145481

COA: 308430

Eaton CC: 01-020251-FC

GARY ALVA THATCHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2012 order 

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

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED.
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. (Company) on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) on the date hereof (Report), I, Stanley P. Wirtheim,
Chief Financial Officer 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, as amended; 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 29,
 2011          | 

---
Sealed Exhibit 

Concurrent with the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks leave to 

file this exhibit under seal. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:111
99.2

KPMG LLP company logo here
KPMG LLP
600 Fleet Center
60 Kennedy Plaza
Providence, RI  02903-23321


INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

The Board of Directors
Ocean Bank, F.S.B.

We have examined management's assertion, included in the
accompanying Management Assertion, that Ocean Bank, F.S.B., formerly
known as Home Loan and Investment Bank, F.S.B., complied with the
minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers
Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended December
31, 2004.  Management is responsible for Ocean Bank F.S.B.'s
compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about Ocean Bank F.S.B.'s compliance based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, including examining, on a test basis, evidence about Ocean
Bank F.S.B.'s compliance with the minimum servicing standards specified
above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary
in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on Ocean Bank F.S.B.'s compliance with the minimum
servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Ocean Bank F.S.B. complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/: KPMG LLP

March 15, 2005


KPMG LLP is a limited liability partnership in the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative







<page>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00706-CR

Kevin Joseph Arceneaux, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 3040037, HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Kevin Arceneaux seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for aggravated

sexual assault. The trial court has certified, and the record confirms, that this is a plea bargain case

and Arceneaux has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The appeal is dismissed. See

id. rule 25.2(d).

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: December 9, 2004

Do Not Publish
Order entered July 11 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-13-00857-CV

IN RE NORTH DALLAS FORNEY INVEST ORS, L.L.C., ET AL., Relators

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 11-09384



### ORDER

Based on the Court’s opini on of today’s date, we DENY relators’ petition for writ of

mandamus. We ORDER that relators bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Tex as

August 10, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00106

- CV

Richard TAYLOR, Appellant

v.

CPS ENERGY, Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 18094 Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee’s brief was due July 31, 2017

. On August 8, 2017, appellee filed a motion for extension of time, requesting an extension until August 23, 2017 to file its brief. In its motion, appellee stated its brief was currently due to be filed on August 9, 2017; however, counsel is reminded that this is an accelerated appeal, and its brief was due July 31, 2017

. 1 See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 38.6(b).

We GRANT appellee ’s request for an extension and ORDER appellee to file its brief on or before August 23, 2017

.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant and appellee

.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

1 Per order dated May 18, 2017, we advised parties to note that this appeal has been designated an accelerated appeal. The clerk’s record reflects that appellant is appealing an order granting CPS Energy’s Rule 91a motion to

dismiss , which was ultimately based on a plea to the jurisdiction. See Texas Dep't of Crim. Justice v. Simons , 140 S.W.3d 338, 349 (Tex. 2004), superseded by statute on other grounds

, T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE § 311.034 (holding that interlocutory appeal may be taken from refusal to dismiss for want of jurisdiction whether jurisdictional argument is made by plea to jurisdiction or some other procedural vehicle); City of Austin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. , 431 S.W.3d 817, 822 & n.1 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2014, no pet.) (holding that ri ght of interlocutory appeal in Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(8) applied to Rule 91a motion to dismiss that challenged jurisdiction).IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 10th day of August, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada Chief Deputy Clerk
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Michael Cannon, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Solectron Corporation on Form 10-Q
for the three-month period ended May 27, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Solectron Corporation. Date: July 6, 2005 /s/ Michael CannonMichael CannonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cr−00551

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

Robert Czernek, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, July 8, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly as to Robert Czernek,

Debra Fazio, Mario Giannini: Telephonic status hearing held on 7/8/2021. The parties

reported on the status of discovery. A telephonic status hearing 9/14/2021 at 9:00 a.m. The

following call in number will be used for the hearing: 888−684−8852, access code

746−1053. Ordered time excluded through 9/14/2021 due to the complexity of the case,

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Mailed notice. (mma, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cr-00551 Document #: 37 Filed: 07/08/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:122
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Television to Cover Return of Astronaut Nick Hague, Crewmates","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"VPMAZQiW1q\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-television-to-cover-return-of-astronaut-nick-hague-crewmates\/\">NASA Television to Cover Return of Astronaut Nick Hague, Crewmates<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-television-to-cover-return-of-astronaut-nick-hague-crewmates\/embed\/#?secret=VPMAZQiW1q\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Television to Cover Return of Astronaut Nick Hague, Crewmates” — NASA\" data-secret=\"VPMAZQiW1q\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/48133421721_b176ab6252_k.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}