alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69548-69549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27545]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Twenty-Ninth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport 
Security Access Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting notice of RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport Security 
Access Control Systems.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
twenty-ninth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport 
Security Access Control Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held on December 10th, 2014 from 10:00 a.m.-
2:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 224. The agenda will 
include the following:

December 10th, 2014

<bullet> Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
<bullet> Review/Approve Previous Meeting Summary
<bullet> Report from the TSA
<bullet> Report on Safe Skies Document Distribution
<bullet> Request to RTCA Program Management Committee for Consideration 
of Operational Guidance Section Status
<bullet> Individual Document Section Reports
<bullet> Action Items for Next Meeting
<bullet> Time and Place of Next Meeting
<bullet> Any Other Business
<bullet> Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability.

[[Page 69549]]

With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present 
oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements 
or obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present 
a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 13, 2014.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and Administration, 
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-27545 Filed 11-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Exhibit 13.13

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

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Launch Company Limited (the "Company") for the annual period ended
December 31, 2004 (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.

| |  | /s/ANDREW SUKAWATYAndrew Sukawaty Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------

Date:
April 29, 2005

---



QuickLinks
Digital / Multimedia

Richard W. Vorder Bruegge, Ph.D.

Digital/Multimedia SAC Chair

Federal Bureau of Investigation

February 13, 2017

Digital / Multimedia SAC 

Leadership

Position Name Organization Term Email

Chair Richard W. 

Vorder Bruegge

Federal Bureau of 

Investigation 2018 richard.vorderbruegge@ic.fbi.gov

Vice Chair Lam D. Nguyen Mandiant 2018 lam@gotolam.com

Executive 

Secretary Eoghan Casey MITRE 2018 ecasey@mitre.org

3
Digital / Multimedia SAC Members

# Name Organization Term Email

1 Abhyuday Mandal University of Georgia 2018 amandal@stat.uga.edu

2 Lawrence M. Solan Brooklyn Law School 2019 larry.solan@brooklaw.edu

3 Eoghan Casey MITRE 2018 ecasey@mitre.org

4 Michael L. Piper Target Corporation 2017 michael.piper@target.com

5 Douglas S. Lacey BEK TEK LLC 2016 doug@bektekllc.com

6

Samuel Liles

US Army Corps of Engineers 

Headquarters 2017 Samuel.P.Liles.Civ@mail.mil

7 John S. Garofolo NIST 2018 John.Garofolo@NIST.gov

8 Mark M. Pollitt Retired 2019 mark@digitalevidencepro.com

9 Lam D. Nguyen Mandiant 2018 lam@gotolam.com

10 James L. Wayman San Jose State University 2019 James.Wayman@sjsu.edu

11 Richard W. Vorder Bruegge Federal Bureau of Investigation 2018 richard.vorderbruegge@ic.fbi.gov

12 James Darnell U.S. Secret Service 2019 james.darnell@usss.dhs.gov

13 Lora S. Sims Ideal Innovations Inc 2018 lora.sims@idealinnovations.com

14 Joseph P. Campbell MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2019 jpc@ll.mit.edu

15

Carl Kriigel

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation 

Laboratory, Defense Forensic 

Science Center 2017 Carl.kriigel@gmail.com

4
Digital / Multimedia SAC

• Subcommittees

– Facial Identification

– Speaker Recognition

– Video/Imaging Technology & Analysis

– Digital Evidence

• Solid foundation of documents for all derived from 

Scientific Working Groups and others

– QIC identified over 80 relevant documents

– Some have been through an SDO (e.g., ASTM, ISO...)
Digital / Multimedia SAC: Foundational Concepts

• Define the Discipline*

• Terminology*

• Professional 

Qualifications

• Accreditation*

• Gap Analysis/Research 

Agenda

• Sample Identification 

and Collection

• Validation

– Methods, tools, people

• Documentation

• Conclusion Scales*

• Interpretation of 

Results

• Human Factors

• Automated 

Systems
Digital / Multimedia SAC

• Some Key DMSAC & OSAC Challenges:

– Scientific Paradigm for Digital/Multimedia Forensics

– Accreditation

– Conclusion Scales – Coordinate with P/PESAC

– Terminology – Discipline-specific vs. Global

– Error Rates through Testing Examiners

• Not a 1-, 2-, or 5-year project...nor is it without 

cost.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                          47,109
<SECURITIES>                                   136,357
<RECEIVABLES>                                  132,012
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,904
<INVENTORY>                                     57,507
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               392,127
<PP&E>                                         105,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 478,009
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,164
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       135,764
<OTHER-SE>                                     260,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   478,009
<SALES>                                        101,628
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,628
<CGS>                                           45,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,732
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,373
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   127
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  79
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,523
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,043
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,613
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,613
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
        

</TABLE>
#### Commonwealth *v.*L. Eckstemper and Others.

Insurance — Voluntary Association — Assuming Corporate Name.

An association of' persons for mutual protection against fire, to which, a corporate charter has been refused, violates no law hy assuming what may he regarded as a corporate name.

APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT.

May 27, 1873.

*687
      *Attorney-General, for appellant.*

*Bullitt, Bramlett, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The association known as the “Falls City German Mutual Insurance Company,” must be regarded as a mere voluntary associa.tion of the members thereof, for the purpose of indemnifying each other against loss by fire, the General Assembly having failed to grant them a charter. There is no corporation, and the proposed charter, which forms the bonus upon which the association credits its business, should be treated as the article of agreement, by which the rights mnd duties of the various members are prescribed and defined.

The association violates no law by assuming what may be regarded as a corporate name, and as it is engaged in a legitimate business, it can not be interfered with by the courts. The petition of the commonwealth was properly dismissed.

Judgment *affirmed.*
9736.

#### Hinson *et al. v.*Haynes, receiver.

Decided February 20, 1919.

Action on bond; from city court of Hazlehurst—Judge Knox. April 22, 1918.

*J. C. Bennett, S. D. Dell,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Newton Gaskins,*contra.

Stephens, J.

1. The evidence with all reasonable deductions therefrom demanded a verdict for the plaintiff, and the court did not err in so directing.

2. The court committed no error as allegel in the first and sixth grounds of the amendment to the motion for new trial,

3. The other special assignments of error do not properly raise any question for consideration by this court.

4. The motion of defendant in error that he be allowed damages against the plaintiff in error for prosecuting the case in this court is denied.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
#### James Lee Wheeler *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 3-374A37.

Filed September 18, 1975].

*22
      *Larry Busick,*Fort Wayne, for appellant.

*Theodore L. Sendak,*Attorney General, *Robert S. Spear,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam

James Lee Wheeler, defendant, is appealing his conviction of two counts of possession of dangerous drugs1 for which he was sentenced to the Indiana Department of Correction for an indeterminate period of not less than one nor more than ten years.

We affirm.

The facts most favorable to the State reveal that early on the morning of November 20, 1971, defendant was stopped by Deputy Sheriff William Baumann on Highway 27 between Berne and Geneva, Indiana. Baumann had in his possession four warrants for defendant’s arrest arising from an altercation between defendant and Baumann at a local restaurant on November 18, 1971. After executing the warrants, Baumann transported defendant to the jail in Decatur, Indiana. Once inside, defendant was given a “jailhouse” inventory search which revealed amounts of marijuana and Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) in his possession.

The sole allegation of error contained in the motion to correct errors is that the conviction was not sustained by the evidence that Wheeler was not licensed to possess the drugs in question. That allegation has been waived through Wheeler’s failure to present any argument regarding it. Indiana Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A) (7) ; *Conrad*v. *State*(1974), 262 Ind. 446, 317*23N.E.2d 789; *Williams*v. *State*(1973), 260 Ind. 543, 297 N.E.2d 805. Furthermore, if properly presented, the question has already been decided adversely to Wheeler. *Cartwright*v. *State*(1972), 154 Ind. App. 328, 289 N.E.2d 763.

In his brief on appeal, Wheeler attempts to argue that the evidence against him was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. Even had this assignment been made in the motion to correct errors, we would be precluded from considering it in detail. The evidence was not objected to when it was introduced at the trial. Therefore, no error was preserved. *See, Harrison*v. *State*(1972), 258 Ind. 359, 281 N.E.2d 98; *Hartwell*v. *State*(1974), 162 Ind. App. 445, 321 N.E.2d 228.

Affirmed.

Note. — Reported at 333 N.E.2d 807.

. IC 1971, 16-6-8-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50887

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ-AYALA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-1060-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis GonzalezAyala has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez-Ayala submitted an untimely supplemental 

brief, which we construe as a motion for leave to file an out-of-time response 

and GRANT. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 18, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50887 Document: 00514560696 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2018
No. 17-50887

2

evaluation of Gonzalez-Ayala’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we 

therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. 

See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Gonzalez-Ayala’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-50887 Document: 00514560696 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2018
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7334

LAWRENCE DUKES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

W. K. JONES; ALVIN NEWMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CA-95-232-5-F)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence Dukes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

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

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

court. Dukes v. Jones, No. CA-95-232-5-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 9, 1995).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Order entered April 19, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01154-CR

DANIEL ROY PENA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-59397-J

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s April 17, 2019 motion to supplement the record on appeal. 

We GRANT appellant’s motion. We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within 

FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing (1) the 

presentence investigation report; (2) the CATS evaluation; and (3) appellant’s March 18, 2019

amended designation of record.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
#### Kohler, Appellant, *v.*Sears, Roebuck & Co., Appellee.

(No. 2017

Decided October 12, 1948.)

*Messrs. Pickrel, Schaeffer db Ebeling,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Harshman db Young,*for appellee.

By the Court.

This cause is submitted on motion of defendant, appellee herein, to dismiss the appeal on questions of law and fact on the ground that plaintiff, appellant herein, has not filed an appeal bond as required by Section 12223-6, General Code, and on the additional ground that the matter is not appealable on questions of law and fact.

The record shows that the appeal bond which is required to be filed under the provisions of Section 12223-6, Genera] Code, in order to perfect an appeal on questions of law and fact has not been filed.

The action is one at law for the recovery of money only, and not an action in chancery.

*99The motion to dismiss the appeal upon questions of law and fact is hereby sustained on both grounds. Under the provisions of Section 12223-22, General Code, whenever an appeal on questions of law and fact is dismissed, the case shall stand for hearing on appeal on questions of law.

The plaintiff is granted 30 days within which to prepare, settle, and file a bill of exceptions, and, also, file assignments of error and brief. Section 11564, General Code.

An entry may be drawn accordingly.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Wiseman, P. J., Miller and Hornbeck, JJ., concur.
#### STONE v. N.C. DEPT. OF LABOR

No. 81PA97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 288

Petition by N.C. Department of Labor for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 June 1997.
Exhibit No. 99.2

[On Letterhead of Aston Bell, Certified Public Accountant]

Independent Accountants Report

Corporate Asset Backed Corporation, (as Depositor)

68 South
Service Road, Suite 120

Melville, NY 11747

U.S. Bank Trust
National Association

Corporate Trust Services

100 Wall
Street, Suite 1600

New York, NY 10005



|Re: | CABCO Series 2004-101 Trust (Goldman Sachs Capital I) (the Trust)
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have examined assertions of Corporate
Asset Backed Corporation (the Depositor) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, (the Trustee and, together with the Depositor, the Management) that the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material
respects, with the provisions of the Trust Agreement dated as of May 20, 2004, (the Trust Agreement) in respect of the CABCO Series 2004-101 Trust (Goldman Sachs Capital I) (the
Trust), during the periods covered by the annual report on Form 10-K filed by the Depositor on behalf of the Trust for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the Annual Report).
Management is responsible for compliance with the Trust Agreement. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Managements assertions based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the examination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether managements assertion is fairly stated, in all material respects. An examination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence about
managements assertion. The nature, timing, and extent of the procedures selected depend on our judgement, including an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of managements assertion, whether due to fraud or error. We believe
that evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have
complied, in all material respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period covered by the Annual Report and Managements assertions with respect to such compliance are fairly stated, in all material respects, for the year ended
December 31, 2017.



|                   
|-------------------
|/s/ Aston Bell, CPA
|                   
|New York, New York 
|March 20, 2018
##### 



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 period ending September 30, 2003 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

October 29, 2003

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is
accompanying the Form 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a
separate disclosure document.
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


   In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 of BrightStar Information Technology
Group, Inc. (the "Form 10-Q"), I, Brian Burnett, Chief Executive Officer, of
BrightStar Information Technology Group, Inc., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

   (1) such Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 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 such Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
      ended March 31, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of BrightStar Information
      Technology Group, Inc.


   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to BrightStar Information Technology
Group, Inc. and will be retained by BrightStar Information Technology Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


Date: May 16, 2005                          BY: /s/ Brian Burnett
                                                Brian Burnett
                                                Chief Executive Officer