alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State, ex rel. Brooks, Appellee, *v.*Smith, Appellant.

(No. 4155

Decided January 26, 1949.)

*Mr. William H. Brooks,*for appellee.

*Mr. Frank C. Shearer,*for appellant.

By the Court.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court, Division of Domestic Relations, Franklin county, finding the defendant, appellant here, guilty of contempt for failure to make support payments as ordered.

The defendant was charged with being the father of the illegitimate child of complainant. The defen dent at first pleaded not guilty. After several continuances the defendant appeared in open court and *336changed his plea from not guilty to guilty. The court made an order respecting support. The defendant, after making payments for about two years, ceased making payments, which gave rise to the contempt charge.

Five errors are assigned, which relate to the validity of the order of the court requiring the defendant to make payments for support. The contention is made that the order was void *ab initio*and, therefore, defendant could not be held in contempt for the violation of a void order. The point is made that the defendant in a bastardy case is entitled to a jury trial, unless a waiver is signed in writing, on the theory that the charge is of a criminal dr quasi-criminal nature and the laws with respect to the trial of criminal cases apply. The record is such that a determination of all the technical legal questions raised is not required.

The record shows that the defendant appeared in open court, withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty. The court made a notation on the record. This action was carried into a journal entry which was signed by the trial judge. A strong presumption exists of the regularity and the correctness' of the court record. The defendant will not be heard to say at this time that he did not change his plea from not guilty to guilty when the record is supported by the overwhelming weight of testimony from witnesses who were present in the courtroom at the time the plea was entered. The record shows a full compliance with the provisions of Section 12123, General Code.

Finding no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Wiseman, P. J., Miller and Hornbeck, JJ., concur.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel, are you 

a 

 Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 20 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:250
10212.

#### Tsivis *v.*Condilis Company.

Decided April 19, 1919.

Luke, J.

The evidence demanded the verdict, and the newly discovered evidence, in view of the trial judge’s note, does not require a new trial. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*

*644Complaint; from city court of Savannah—Judge, Freeman. September 17, 1918.

*Robert L. Colding H. Mercer*Jordan, for plaintiff in error.

*H. P.*Gobb, contra.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Innovative Solutions and Support, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 asfiled 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 therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| By:                  | /s/  RAYMOND J. WILSON   |              |
|----------------------|--------------------------|-------------------|
|                 | RAYMOND J. WILSON        |              |
|                 | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  |              |
|                 |                     |              |
|                 |                     |              |
| August 6,  2008 |                     |
|                 |                     |              |
|                 |                     |              |
|                 |                     | /s/  JOHN C. LONG |   |
|                 | JOHN  C. LONG            |              |
|                 | CHIEF  FINANCIAL OFFICER |              |
|                 |                     |              |
|                 |                     |              |
| August 6,  2008 |                     |
|                      |                          |                   |  |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001. In connection with the Quarterly Report of Delek
Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Leonard Sternheim, President of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, 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 result of operations of the
Company.

Dated: May 19, 2005

                           /s/ Leonard Sternheim
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                           Leonard Sternheim, President, Chief Executive Officer
From: Harsha Banavara <harsha.banavara@signify.com>

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 4:58 PM

To: privacyframework <privacyframework@nist.gov>

Subject: NIST Privacy Framework: Preliminary Draft Comments

Signify Classified - Internal

Hello,

Please find attached the comments for NIST Privacy Framework: Preliminary Draft.

Regards,

Harsha Banavara 

Cybersecurity Technical Policy Manager

Standards & Regulations Americas

+ 1.615.540.7018

Signify North America Corporation

3 Burlington Woods Drive

Burlington, MA 01803, USA
Comment 

#

Organization 

Name Submitted By (Name/Email)

Page 

# Line # Section

Comment

(Include rationale for 

comment) Suggested Change

Type of 

Comment 

(General/

Editorial/

Technical)

1

Signify NA 

Corporation harsha.banavara@signify.com 7

242-

244

Impact on revenue is not 

mentioned. This would be the 

foremost impact as customers 

abandon products and 

services.

Include impact on 

revenue along with 

the other impacts as 

mentioned General

2

Signify NA 

Corporation harsha.banavara@signify.com 21 684 Table 2

It will be good to highlight 

which of the sub-categories 

fall under 

technical/administrative/man

agement for better readability 

of the document. General

3

Signify NA 

Corporation harsha.banavara@signify.com 11 385

Profiles can be used to 

describe both the current 

state or the desired target 

state of specific privacy 

activities.

Profiles can be used 

to describe both the 

current state and/or 

the desired target 

state of specific 

privacy activities. General

4

Signify NA 

Corporation harsha.banavara@signify.com 11 407,408

Why should an organization 

consider moving to a higher 

tier when they are not 

capable of being compliant to 

a lower lever tier in the first 

place. Normally an 

organization considers moving 

to the next tier when there is 

a necessity and have 

completely met or are 

competent enough of meeting 

all the requirements in the 

current tier.

Reword to suggest 

something as 

commented in 

column G. General
5

Signify NA 

Corporation harsha.banavara@signify.com 11 410,411

Tiers just show the capability 

of an organization to meet the 

target level and provide a 

justification to the 

stakeholders as to why it feels 

that level/tier is good enough.

The second half of 

the sentence after 

stakeholders can be 

deleted. General

6

Signify NA 

Corporation harsha.banavara@signify.com 15

539-

541

at other places you have used 

the word 'data' instead of 

information e.g 551,573 need 

to be consistent and data 

makes more sense for 539-

541

replace information 

by data General

7

Signify NA 

Corporation harsha.banavara@signify.com 24

GV.MTP2 No mention of any time

reviewed annually or 

at a timeframe 

decided appropriate 

by the organization General

8

Signify NA 

Corporation harsha.banavara@signify.com 26

CM.AWP7

No point in notifying 

individuals and organizations 

about privacy event. End user 

will be bombarded with a 

number of messages if an 

organization start reporting 

events.

Delete the words 'or 

event'. Include 

and/or instead of 

individuals or 

organizations. General
Cite as 2023 Ark. 124



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE CLIENT SE CURITY FUND

COMMITTEE Opinion Delivered September 21, 2023

PER CURIAM

The court appoints Rachel Kate Anderson, Esq., of Scott, to the Client Security Fund

Committee for a term expiring on July 31, 202 8 . The court appreciates Ms. Anderson ’ s

willingness to serve on this important committee.
Exhibit 10.1



 






Exhibit 10.1




Description of Executive Incentive Bonus Plan for Fiscal 2006




     On August 9, 2005, the Board of Directors of Black Box
Corporation adopted an executive incentive bonus plan for Fiscal 2006 (fiscal year
ending March 31, 2006). The plan goals include one or more of the following: earnings per share,
operating income, operating margin percentage and days sales outstanding (“DSOs”). Payments are
scheduled to be made on a quarterly basis upon achievement of such goals on a year-to-date basis.
Payout of the bonus is at 50% of target for achieving 90% of the goal increasing to 100% of target
at 100% of goal. Payout could exceed 100% of target under the plan. In addition, payments may be
made in the discretion of the Board of Directors.
Exhibit 13.5



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Investments Limited (the
Company) for the annual period ended 31 December 2006 (the Periodic Report), I, Andrew Sukawaty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the
Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/    ANDREW
SUKAWATYAndrew Sukawaty Chief Executive Officer




Date: 29 April 2008
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3923

To designate the Federal building located at 228 Walnut Street, in 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Ronald Reagan Federal Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2004

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 228 Walnut 

Street, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Ronald 

Reagan Federal Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building located at 228 Walnut Street, 

5 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Ronald Reagan Federal Building’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 
2

•HR 3923 IH 

1 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

2 a reference to the ‘‘Ronald Reagan Federal Building’’.

Æ
#### William Biggs and Others *v.*Nathaniel Dawson, Adm'r.

Limitation of Actions — Proof.

Where the statute of limitations is pleaded and the petition shows upon its face that the claim is barred, no other proof is necessary.

APPEAL FROM CARTER CIRCUIT COURT.

February 1, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The original liability of the ancestor of appellants occurred in the year 1840 and this is made the basis of the action against them. *416They rely upon the statute of limitations more than thirty years having elapsed to the filing of the amended petition. This amendment was the only pleading containing a 'cause of action against appellants, and upon its face shows when the liability occurred. In such a case, when the statute is pleaded and the petition shows that a sufficient time has elapsed to bar the claim, no other proof is necessary. The judgment is therefore reversed and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the petition as against the appellants.

*Stevenson & Myers, for appellants.*

—1-, *for appellee.*
#### Chas. H. Woollums *v.*H. H. Murray, etc.

Alteration of Instruments — Substituting Another as Drawer of Bill.

Where a bill, after being drawn and accepted and while in the hands of the holder, was so altered, without the drawer’s knowledge or consent, as to substitute another as drawer, it was a material alteration such as' will relieve the original drawer from liability thereon.

APPEAL. FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

January 7, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

If it be true, as alleged in the answer, and the evidence conduces to prove, that the bill accepted by the appellant was also *263drawn by him and not by the appellees, as the one sued upon purports to have been, or in other words, that the paper as originally drawn and accepted was afterwards, while in the holder’s possession, so altered, without the appellant’s knowledge or consent, as to substitute the appellees as drawers for the appellant, thereby changing the character of the paper and destroying its identity, we must regard the alteration as material, and as one which operated to relieve the appellant from liability on the paper in its present form', or rather as imposing none upon him. Whether he may not still be liable on the bill as originally executed, as on account for the lumber which seems to have been the consideration of his acceptance, may depend on ulterior facts not fully disclosed in this record. But however this may be, the instruction given by the court to the jury, in substance and effect, that notwithstanding the erasure and substitution of the drawer’s name, the appellant was still liable on the paper, if originally given for a debt to the appellees, can not be sustained. It seems to us to be inconsistent both with other instructions given by the court, and with our own views of the law of the case as herein indicated.

*Breckenridge & Buckner, J. T. Shelby, for appellant.*

*Johnson & Brown, for appellees.*

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial on principles consistent with this opinion. On the return of the cause the plaintiffs should be allowed to file their amended petition, which was offered and rejected.
Uniform Laws and Regulations

in the areas of legal metrology and

engine fuel quality

as adopted by the 95th

National Conference on

Weights and Measures 2010

NIST Handbook

2011

130
#### M. R. Everitt *v.*James Blackburn and Wife.

Limitation of Action — Absence of Plaintiff in Army.

The absence of plaintiff in the Confederate army was held not to prevent the running of a statute of limitations'.

APPEAL PROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

January 9, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The plea of the statute of limitations should have been sustained. The promise relied on to take the demand out of the statute was made, if at all, in 1863. The only pleading in this cause upon which the relief granted could have been based, was a paper filed June 21, 1870, styled by appellees “Answer to Cross-P'etition.” This was long after the original action against the Odd Fellows Lodge had been finally disposed of. Still, as appellant did not object to the time and manner in which it got into the case' and as he treated it as a petition by filing what he calls an “amended answer, and answer to cross-petition,” pleading both payment and limitation, we suppose the court properly undertook to adjudicate the matters presented, notwithstanding the fact that before it could be done, an action in ejectment had to be transformed into an action in as-sumpsit. From the promise in 1863 to the filing of appellees’ “answer to cross-petition” in June, 1870, more than five years had *278elapsed. Hence the statutory bar was complete. The absence of Blackburn in the Confederate lines did not prevent the running of the statute, but even if it had, he returned in May, 1865, and more than five years elapsed between his return and the 21st of June, 1870.

*Apperson & Reid, for appellant.*

*Tenney, for appellees.*

The amendment to the original petition making appellant a party and making the same allegations against him as had been made against the Odd Fellows, is of no avail. The relief sought in that action was the recovery of real estate and mesne profits and the existence of such a proceeding could not, according to any rule of . practice known to this court, interfere with the meaning of the statute against a claim for money had and received.

* The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to render judgment in favor of appellant for his costs incurred since the 21st of June, 1870.
#### SKINNER et al. v. ROGERS et al.

Civ. A. 4326.

United States District Court N. D. Texas, Dallas Division.

Oct. 2, 1951.

*199Pat Coon, Dallas, Tex., Arthur P. Bagby, Austin, Tex., for the plaintiffs.

Earl Street, Harry Campbell, Jr., and T. Hagan Allin, all of Dallas, Tex., for the defendants.

ATWELL, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs allege that they were constructing the Garza Little Elm Dam and in the project they had 190 employees who were engaged in moving dirt and rock from one place to another with shovel and moving impedimenta. That the defendant Rogers was one of the inspectors for the Wage and Hour Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., in the State of Texas, and some of the adjoining states, and that he visited the scene of such undertaking, talked with several of the workmen and ascertained that they were not being paid Wage and Hour Act wages, and that they were working more than forty hours per week.

A temporary injunction was first granted after hearing, and, upon this, the final trial, voluminous exhibits and testimony were introduced by the defendants, with the attempt to establish that the work was for the purpose of furnishing more water to the city of Dallas for its industrial district, and, eventually, and finally, to afford a further use of the Trinity River some three hundred miles below Dallas for navigation. That portion of the Trinity River which is nearer the Gulf, and which is a considerable distance from Dallas, does carry interstate commerce for distribution by railroads and ships from certain Gulf ports.

A Congressional exhibit was offered which showed the passing of an Act by the Congress authorizing the survey of the Trinity River and its eventual including, through its upper sources of such a supply of water, that it would afford assistance for interstate shippers and for navigation.

Testimony did not support this dream, insofar as navigation is concerned, at an early date in the future.

The defendant Rogers had *no*right under the law, to send the great quantity of letters to the laborers, or, to make threats to the employer that suits would be brought against them for $14,902.84 for parties under the Wage and Hour law. He has, and had, only such power as Sec. 16 of subdivision (c) oE the Wage and Hour law gives him, to-wit, after a court shall have settled the law with reference to a matter.

His activity in stirring up trouble between the employer and employees *is not*at all justifiable as a representative of the United States Wage and Hour statute. The employees who were doing the work were paid for overtime, if and when they worked more than eight hours per day.

The defendant has no authority under the constitutional grant of supervision *200over interstate commerce, to enter and criticize the wages of an employee who is piling dirt on a dam, which, even itself, is not used in interstate commerce and may never be used in interstate commerce.

The defendants are enjoined permanently from stirring up trouble, writing letters, and making threats with reference to such workers.
Federal Laboratory Consortium 

The Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLC) is the formally chartered, 

nationwide network of over 300 federal laboratories, agencies, and research centers, that fosters 

commercialization, best practice strategies, and opportunities, for accelerating federal 

technologies out of the labs and into the marketplace. 

Through American taxpayers’ investment in our federal laboratories’ research and development 

(R&D) efforts, scientific and technological breakthroughs can take place and return dividends to 

our economy. New industries, businesses, and jobs that can be created, when a new technology is 

brought to market, are just a few of the successes that take effect through technology transfer

(T2), and the FLC is here to promote, facilitate, and educate labs and industry about that process. 

https://www.federallabs.org/