alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2317

THOMAS DARBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ORANGEBURG, City of; D ALLEN OTT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-01-4184-22BD-5) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 4, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Darby, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Coleman Jones, BOGOSLOW, JONES, STEPHENS & DUFFIE, P.A., Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Thomas Darby seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failing to allege a deprivation of a federal right. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal pe riod is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on November 1, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on October 20, 2003. Because Darby failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
From: JR3 Consulting, LLC 

To: aiframework 

Subject: Response to RFI: Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework 

Date: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:40:07 PM 

Attachments: RM5 Method of risk management 02152021.doc 

AI RMF RFI Response_JR3 Consulting.xlsx 

Greetings: 

Please see the attached response on the NIST-provided template (Item 10 only). As 

explanatory material for the response, I've also attached supporting research on a novel 

(journal-published) risk management framework which may benefit The Institute. The 

research was conducted while I supported the US Army as a contractor and was updated while 

I was a Professor of Digital Engineering at the Defense Acquisition University. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback from industry on this important topic. 

Regards, 

John Rice 

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

John Rice, President and Owner 

JR3 Consulting, LLC 

-

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jr3consulting
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, the undersigned officer of ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (the “Company”)hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| August 11, 2005 |   | By     | /s/ David A. Wheat |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
| (Date)                    |   |   |                    | David A. Wheat |
|                      |   |   |                    | Director, Executive Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIAN ZHENG, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73305 

Agency No. A205-187-548 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2020**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Tian Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-73305 

Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018). We grant in part and deny 

in part the petition for review, and we remand.

The record compels the conclusion that the cumulative harm Zheng suffered 

in China rose to the level of persecution. See Guo, 897 F.3d at 1213-17 (finding 

petitioner suffered past persecution because of his religious beliefs where he was 

detained, beaten, forced to sign a document promising not to attend a home church, 

and required to report to the police weekly); see also Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 

1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004) (totality of the circumstances compelled finding of 

persecution). Thus, we grant the petition for review as to Zheng’s asylum and 

withholding of removal claims, and remand to the agency for further proceedings 

consistent with this disposition. See Guo, 897 F.3d at 1217; see also INS v. 

Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Zheng failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the 

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Aden v. 

Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Guo, 897 F.3d at 1217 

(insufficient likelihood of torture).

The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; 

REMANDED.
6

Approach for Regulating the Use of Facial Recognition by Law 

Enforcement

Morphing Cases in Slovenia

9:30 Break 9:30 Break 9:30 Break

Face Image Quality (Session Chair: Christoph Busch) Industry Outlook (Session Chair: Patrick Grother) Face Morphing (Session Chair: Mei Ngan)

7

9:45 Olaf Henniger (IGD): Selection of a Suitable Data Set for 

Training a Face Image Quality Assessment Algorithm

17 9:45 Neda Eskandari (Paravision): Synthetics and DeepFakes: Opportunities, 

Threats, and Protection

27 9:45 Mei Ngan (NIST): FRVT MORPH - Current Vulnera

Assessment and Automated Detection Performa

8

10:10 Jim Wayman (DHS OBIM): Expanding Face Image Quality 

to Include More Use Cases

18 10:10 Brendan Klare (Rank One): The Pros and Cons of Face Recognition 28 10:10 Matteo Ferrara (University of Bologna): Morphin

Potential (MAP)

9

10:35 Patrick Grother (NIST): Quality Overview and the ISO/IEC 

29794-5 Face Image Quality Standard

19 10:35 Stephane Gentric (Idemia): From e-Gate to Free Flow 29 10:35 Nasser Nasrabadi (West Virginia University), 

Chen Liu/Zander Blasingame (Clarkson Universit

David Doermann (University at Buffalo), 

(CITeR): Face Morph Generation and Attack Dete

10

11:00 Yevgeniy Sirotin (SAIC): Assessing Variation in Human 

Skin Tone to Inform Face Recognition System Design

20 11:00 Michael Thieme (Accenture FS): Update on Presentation Attack 

Detection Standards 

30 11:00 Kiran Raja (Norwegian University of Science and 

Overview on Morph Attack Detection Developm

11:25 Joyce Yang (NIST): FRVT Quality Assessment - Specific 

Image Defect Detection

11:25 Norman Poh (TrustStamp): Modelling the Odds of False Acceptance 

and False Rejection of a Privacy-Preserved Multimodal System 

Involving Face Modality

11:25 Frøy Løvåsdal (National Police Directorate, Norw

Morphing Attack Detection - Analysing Human O

Ability

11:50 Keynote presentation: Arun Vemury (DHS S&T): Face 

Recognition Performance Requirements - the DHS 

Perspective.

11:50 11:50

Time 7:00 Washington DC (EST) 16:00 Dubai 21:00 Tokyo

Zones 12:00 London 17:30 Delhi 23:00 Sydney

13:00 Brussels 21:00 Seoul 1:00 Auckland
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**OMALI A. MCKAY,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 446 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 30th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.**
9621.

#### Bank of Ball Ground *v.*National Surety Co.

Decided January 14, 1919.

Action on bond; from Cherokee superior court—Judge Morris. March 2, 1918.

*King & Spalding,*for plaintiff.

*Rosser, Slaton, Phillips & Ilopldns,*for defendant.

Wade, C. J.

1. Under the express terms of the fidelity bond forming the basis of this action, liability arises *provided*the employer shall have given certain specified notice to the surety of “any act of personal dishonesty” of the employee within “ten (10) days after becoming aware -éf such act, or facts indicating such act, or any loss, and shall have, within ninety (90) days after the discovery of any such loss, filed with the surety an itemized statement of such loss, and produced for all investigations all books, vouchers, and evidence, in the employer’s possession,” etc.

*(a)*It is not sufficiently alleged in the original petition or in any of the amendments thereto that these conditions of the policy were complied ■with by the plaintiff. Nor does the petition allege any facts sufficient to constitute a legal waiver by the surety company (within time) of the aforesaid conditions, upon the performance of which only could liability arise under the terms of the contract. t

2. The trial judge d'id not err in sustaining a general demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenhins and Luhe, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         368,865
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  354,399
<ALLOWANCES>                                   106,319
<INVENTORY>                                     11,877
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               856,967
<PP&E>                                          10,592
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,760,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          326,329
<BONDS>                                        358,820
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           11,380
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,518
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,075,373
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,760,522
<SALES>                                      1,006,774
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,006,774
<CGS>                                          164,504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  164,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               657,528
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                184,742
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            184,742
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   184,742
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
#### W. A. Marshall, etc., *v.*Commonwealth.

Appeal — Objections and Exceptions — Waiver.

In the absence of objection to evidence, or in the absence of exceptions to instructions, any errors contained therein will be deemed to have -been waived.

Appeal — Reversal—Misdemeanor.

The Court of Appeals can only reverse a judgment in a misdemeanor case for errors of law appearing in -the record and prejudicial to defendant.

APPEAL FROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.

June 13, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

No objections were made to any evidence that was offered or heard on the trial, and no exceptions were tahen to- the instructions given to the jury at the instance of appellee, although therefore there may have been errors in those instructions we must regard them: as waived. *Burns v. Commonwealth,*3 Met. 13; Sec. 275, Crim. Code.

*743Craddock, *for appellant.*

*Attorney-Gmeral, for appellee.*

The evidence in our opinion preponderates very decidedly against the verdict, but this court can not reverse the judgment because the court below refused to grant a new trial on that ground. In cases of misdemeanors this court can only reverse a judgment of a lower court for errors of law appearing on1 the record to the prejudice of the appellant. Sec. 348, Crim. Code.

Wherefore the judgment must be *affirmed.*
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Citizens Bancorp (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, William V. Humphreys, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Lark E. Wysham, Chief Financial Officer, each certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

|                                                                                                  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ William V. Humphreys

William V. Humphreys
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2003 |  | 
|                                                                                                  |  | 
|/s/ Lark E. Wysham

Lark E. Wysham
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2003                           |  |
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 69849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27766]



[[Page 69849]]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than December 09, 2014.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, 
Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Peoples State Bancorp, Inc., through its subsidiary, Peoples 
State Bank of Munising, both in Munising, Michigan proposes to reduce 
its ownership in Lasco Development Corporation, Marquette, Michigan, to 
less than 100 percent. Lasco Development Corporation engages in the 
activity of data processing for financial institutions.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 19, 
2014.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-27766 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

November 4, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00705-CV

IN RE M-I L.L.C. D/B/A M-I SWACO, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-18432

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 28, 2014, relator M-I L.L.C. d/b/a M-I SWACO filed a petition 

for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator complains of the refusal of the 

Honorable William Burke, presiding judge of the 189th District Court of Harris 

County, to conduct portions of a temporary injunction hearing involving purported 
2

trade secret information outside the presence of the employees of real party in 

interest National Oilwell Varco, L.P. 

Relator has not established that it is entitled mandamus relief. Accordingly, 

we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.3


              Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting a part of this Registration Statement on Form S-8 of our report
dated March 6, 1998, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
schedules of Income Opportunity Realty Investors, Inc. (the "Company") appearing
in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1997.


                                
                                /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

                                BDO Seidman, LLP

Dallas, Texas
April 3, 1998
After the event

EXPLORING TIP SHEET

TIPS FOR EXPLORING CYBERSECURITY IN YOUR LOCAL COMMUNITY. Cybersecurity is Everywhere

GETTING

STARTED

Use websites, email, fliers, and social media.

Ask local teachers to inform their students

about the event

Contact local businesses directly, reach out to your

state or local Economic and Workforce Development

Boards, or research local museums in your area.

Inquire about answers to the following questions:

Do they have established programs, tours, or

presentations about cybersecurity or careers in

cybersecurity? Can they customize their program to the

age group of your participants? Is there an admission

charge? If yes, can they extend a discount to event

participants or could they bring a presentation to

SPREAD THE

WORD

Once you have

determined the

location and date of 

the event,

communicate the

event details to as

wide an audience

as possible.

Arrange for some adults or college

students to serve as chaperones.

Scout leaders, coaches, parents, and

high school or collegiate students with

a background or interest in

cybersecurity are good candidates to

invite.

another site where there would not be an admission

charge? Are there special “free days” for the local

community that could allow free admission for event

attendees?

DURING THE

Watch for news stories involving

cybersecurity topics, such as

breaches, scams, or career fairs which

can help add context to the tour.

EVENT

SHARE WITH US

Divide attendees into smaller groups of

appropriate size. The location

personnel can suggest a good number

per group.

Consider providing a sheet with

questions that attendees could answer

during the event or consider tour facts

for an older audience.

Ask participants to take photos (if

allowed) and submit to ccaw@nist.gov

or post to #cybercareerweek.

Suggest that

participants visit 

their local 

library to read

cybersecurity 

related books.

Younger

participants

might also draw a

picture or create

a short poem or 

story about their

trip.

High school or

undergraduate

students could be

asked to discuss

or write a

reflection about

their trip or write

a response or

reaction paper

comparing their

trip to what they

had learned in the

classroom or from

a writing prompt.

What cybersecurity threat concerns

you the most? How might a

cybersecurity practitioner help lessen

this threat?

What is the most important

cybersecurity story in the news in the

last week? What role could a

cybersecurity practitioner play in this

news story?

A few writing

prompt items

include:
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
FURNISHED 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 Patriot Scientific Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit
(the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company does hereby certify,
pursuant to Rule 13a–14(b) or Rule 15d–14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to his knowledge:




(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.





Date:
October 10, 2008


/s/
      Clifford L. FlowersClifford
      L. Flowers
              Chief
      Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


To the Board of Directors
TCC Industries, Inc.:


      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of TCC Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 33-67730) of our
report dated February 24, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules of TCC Industries, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for the years ended December
31, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.


                                                        COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


Austin, Texas
February 24, 1998




                                       94