alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### R. C. Poindexter and Wife *v.*Henry, Grant & Bush.

Fraudulent Conveyances — Putting Property Beyond Reach of Creditors.

The pleadings and the evidence were held to show that a conveyance was made to put the property beyond the reach of the vendor’s creditors. '

APPEAL PROM CLARK CIRCUIT COURT.

January 28, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

An unmarried woman, Mrs. Poindexter, purchased the land which has given rise to this controversy, after which she agreed by parol as appears from the record, to let her brother, John L. Smith, have the one-half of it if he would pay one-half the purchase price, which he agreed, but failed to do.

In July, 1868, reciting in the deed that he in conjunction with his sister had purchased the land, and he having failed to pay his part of the purchase price to their vendors, but then owed $2,812.40, which had been paid by his sister and her husband, Richard Poin-dexter, and the price of the land having depreciated very much since their purchase, so. that his interest therein was not worth more than the amount of the purchase money which he owed, in consideration thereof he conveyed all his interest in said land to his sister.

*402
      *Simpson, for appellant.*

*Eginton, for appellees.*

Mrs. Poindexter paid or undertook to pay for the land when she purchased it, ninety-five dollars and sixty cents per acre, and at the time Smith conveyed his interest to her, according to the decided preponderance of the evidence, it was worth $80 per acre, and there being a fraction over 86 acres, the depreciation on Smith’s half would have amounted to $671, leaving the value of his half of the land at about $3,475, and although he had actually paid .on it $530 of his own money, to say nothing of the $800 in addition, which is alleged to have been paid out of the rents of the place, the consideration recited in his deed is over six hundred dollars less than the value after taking off the depreciation, and then in addition thereto he loses the $530 which he had paid.

This great sacrifice is not satisfactorily accounted for; in the amended petition the appellees charge that the deed to appellants was a fraud on their rights, and the different versions given of the transaction in the original and amended answers, together with the fact that the consideration recited in the deed is considerably less than the value of the land at the time according to the weight of the evidence, conduce to the conclusion that the conveyance was made to protect the property from1 the payment of J. L. Smith’s debts; and we therefore think the one-half the land was properly subjected to the payment of appellees’ debt as it appears to be sufficient to pay that, in addition to the $2,812.40, the consideration recited in appellant’s deed.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

                                AMERICAN STANDARD
                        ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT OF DIRECTOR

         Piscataway,  NJ - October 29, 1999 - American  Standard  Companies Inc.
(NYSE:ASD) today announced that Mr. Joseph S. Schuchert has informed the Company
of his decision to retire now from his service on the Board of Directors. He has
been a Director for more than ten years since  leading the  Company's  leveraged
buy-out in 1988 and will  reach the age of 71 this  December.  With the  Board's
recent election of a new Chairman and Chief  Executive  Officer,  Mr.  Schuchert
decided it would be timely to leave the Board and expressed his confidence  that
the Company is well positioned to enter a new phase of its development.

AMERICAN STANDARD IS A $7 BILLION GLOBAL,  DIVERSIFIED  MANUFACTURER OF TRANE(R)
AND AMERICAN STANDARD(R) air conditioning products, AMERICAN STANDARD(R),  IDEAL
STANDARD(R),  STANDARD(R)  ,  PORCHER(R),  ARMITAGE  SHANKS(R)  AND  DOLOMITE(R)
PLUMBING PRODUCTS,  WABCO(R)  commercial and UTILITY VEHICLE BRAKING AND CONTROL
SYSTEMS,   COPALIS(R)  and  Pylori-Chek  (TM)  medical  diagnostic  systems  and
DiaSorin(TM) medical diagnostic products. The company operates 116 manufacturing
facilities in 33 countries and employs approximately 57,000 people worldwide.

For Further Information Contact:
Ray Pipes (732) 980-6095 or
Lisa Glover (732) 980-6048

THE  LATEST  NEWS   RELEASE   AND   CORPORATE   INFORMATION   CAN  BE  HEARD  ON
1-888-ASD-NEWS.  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AMERICAN STANDARD IS AVAILABLE ON THE
COMPANY'S WORLDWIDE WEB SITE AT HTTP://WWW.AMERICANSTANDARD.COM
Draft IoT AB Timeline to Report Publication in January 2024

January 2023

Initial IoT AB Meeting

Agreement of Scope

Definitions of Vertical / Horizontal

Sub-groups

March 7, 2023

IoT AB Meeting 2

Agreement on general report 

outline

Conceptual agreement on

what sub-groups will provide to

the IoT AB report (incl. lead authors)

January 2024

Report Publication

April 18-19, 2023

IoT AB Meeting 3

May 16-17, 2023

IoT AB Meeting 4

All input received from 

sub-groups

Full IoT AB (and the public) will 

have access to the sub-group 

results

July 2023

Interim Report Review

Recommendations provided for

any “gaps” determined

November 2023

Final Draft Report

Review by IoT AB chairs to 

ensure completeness

and readiness for

submission to the 

working group

Member and

Sub-Group input

due by Mid-April

Editors working with

IoT AB Members

Secretariat will assemble the report 

submissions, review alignment with 

NDAA requirements, work to 

achieve “one voice”

Published on 

website

Recommendations are clear

and achieve the Board’s desired

tone and messaging

Final review and minor edits from

IoT AB members
11 TH C OURT O F A PPEALS E ASTLAND , T EXAS J UDGMENT
Tommy Rossa, * From the 32nd District Court of Nolan County, Trial Court No. 19935

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 347

- CV * November 7 , 2019
Steven Seth Mahaffey, * Opinion by Wright, S. C.J. (Panel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Stretcher , J. , and Wright, S.C.J., sitting by assignment ) (Willson, J., not participating)
This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, we reverse the trial court’s order to the extent that it dismissed Tommy Rossa’s defamation claim based on statements made by Steven Seth Mahaffey to his parents and to Scotty Self
, and we remand that claim to the trial court for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court’s order in all

o ther respects. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed one

half against Tommy Rossa and one

- half against Steven Seth Mahaffey.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 19

- 00821

- CV

In re Texas Pension Review Board and Stephanie Leibe, in her

Official Capacity as Chair of the Texas Pension Review Board

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

The petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion for temporary relief

are denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

_______________________ ___________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Ke lly

Filed: November 14, 2019
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Innovative Solutions and Support,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
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.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Geoffrey S. M. Hedrick
--------------------------
Geoffrey S. M. Hedrick
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2002

/s/James J. Reilly
------------------
James J. Reilly
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2002

                                       15
Form of Specimen Stock Certificate



 Exhibit 4.1 
  

FORM OF SPECIMEN STOCK CERTIFICATE 
  
 LookSmart, Ltd. 
 transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder
hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. 
  
 WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly
authorized officers. 
  
 LSL 
  
 THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE IN NEW YORK, NY OR JERSEY CITY, NJ 
  
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 
 CUSIP 543442 50 3 
  
 This certifies that is the record holder of 
  
 FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $0.001 PAR VALUE, OF SECRETARY PRESIDENT 
  
 COUNTERSIGNED and registered: 
 MELLON INVESTOR SERVICES LLC 
 TRANSFER AGENT and registrar 
  

			
		
	BY	 	 
	 	 	AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

  
 LookSmart, Ltd. 
  
 The Corporation will furnish to any stockholder, upon request and without charge, a statement
of the powers, designations, preferences, and relative participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights.
#### Willie James KILLIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold HOLT, J.W. Ross, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-6802.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Feb. 4, 1999.

Joan B. Singleton, Bessemer, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Andrew W. Redd, Alabama Dept, of Corrections Legal Div., Montgomery, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

Before EDMONDSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and MORAN *, District Judge.

*

 Honorable James B. Moran, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Fountain Correctional Center, was injured when he was attacked by another inmate. He brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment *1157rights. After reviewing the record, we conclude that plaintiff has failed to bring forth evidence from which reasonable jurors could find that defendant prison officials knew of and were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates, resulting in plaintiffs injuries. *See Hale v. Tallapoosa County,*50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir.1995). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment.

We further decide that the district court did not err in refusing to appoint counsel for defendant in his section 1983 action. The district courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to appoint counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); *Dean v. Barber,*951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir.1992). The district court did not abuse its discretion in this case.

AFFIRMED.
10641.

#### CLELAND *v.*BENNETT.

The writ of error in this ease must be dismissed for lack of service on the sheriff and his deputy, who were necessary parties to the bill of exceptions. Their acknowledgment and waiver of service after the bill of exceptions had been filed in this court, without an agreement that the case might be heard, as provided in the Civil Code (1910), § 6160 (3), can not prevent dismissal.

Decided January 27, 1920.

Affidavit of illegality; from city court of Baxley—Judge Lawrence. March 6, 1919.

To an execution against Mary J. Cleland, upon which garnishment was obtained against the Woodmen of the World, an affidavit of illegality was interposed by her, on the ground that in the case in which the execution was issued, she had not been served and had no notice of the proceeding; and she traversed the deputy sheriff’s return of service and made him and the sheriff parties to the traverse. The trial of the issue resulted in a verdict against her; she made a motion for a new trial,^ which was overruled, and she excepted to the judgment overruling the motion.

Bloodworth, J.

A motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions in this case was made on two grounds: 1st. “Because there is no proper and sufficient assignment of error made.” 3d. “Because the Woodmen of the World, W. J. Branch, and D. J. Branch were not made parties to the bill of exceptions, nor was same served on them.” The bill of exceptions contains a sufficient assignment of error, and the fijst ground of the motion to dismiss is overruled. The second ground is sustained. The Woodmen of the World is not a necessary party to the bill of exceptions. W. J. Branch, the sheriff, and D. J. Branch, his deputy, are necessary parties. *Pro*
      *683
      *ducers Naval Stores Co.*v. *Brewton,*19 *Ga. App.*19 (90 S. E. 735); *Byrd*v. *Interstate Chemical Co.*19 *Ga. App.*412 (91 S. E. 578), and cit. While the sheriff and his deputy acknowledged service of the bill of exceptions, they did not “agree that said case may be heard,” as provided by section 6160 (3) of the Civil Code of 1910. *Marietta Paper Mfg. Co.*v. *Faw,*64 *Ga.*450; *Craig*v. *Webb,*70 *Ga.*188 (2); *Sears*v. *Jeffords,*119 *Ga.*821, 823 (47 S. E. 186); *Bullard*v. *Wynn,*134 *Ga.*636 (1) (68 S. E. 439); *Carter*v. *Davidson,*138 *Ga.*317 (1) (75 S. E. 155); nor were they made parties by amendment as provided by section 5 of the act of 1911 (Ga. L. 1911, p. 149); Park’s Civil Code, § 6164 (b). See also *Parrish*v. *Adams,*22 *Ga. App.*170 (1) (95 S. E. 749); *Coleman v. Board of Education,*136 *Ga.*844 (3) (72 S. E. 159).

*Writ of eiror dismissed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
RRAw 228%

National Radio Research Agency

29, Wonhyoro 41Gil, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, 140-848, Korea
Tel: +82 2 710 6600, Fax: +82 2 710 6629
Homepage : www.rra.go.kr

May 14, 2014

Mr. David F. Alderman

Group Leader, Standards Coordination and Conformity Group
National Institute of Standards and Technology

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2100

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-2100, USA

Dear Mr. David F. Alderman:

I regret to inform you that some of the test laboratories issued and submitted test reports by using
equipment which have not been shown calibration. Furthermore, the measuring receiver needs to be
equipped with a linear average detector with meter time constant to measure intermittent, unsteady and
drifting narrowband disturbances correctly according to KN 16-1 and CISPR 16-1 series. The list is attached
to this letter.

Please notice the following information to prevent this to be happening again.

Equipment Calibration intervals

The maximum nominal calibration interval shall be as indicated below.

EMI Receiver lyear
Antenna 2 years
Line Impedance Stabilization Network lyear
Clamp lyear
Coupling/Decoupling Networks (CDN) lyear
Electric probe lyear
Magnetic probe lyear
Electrostatic generator lyear
Electric Fast Transient(EFT) / Burst Generators ‘lyear
Surge generator lyear
Voltage dips and variations Testing lyear ‘

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about this notification and I would like to

thank you and your staff for the support, patience and cooperation.

Best regards,

o >
Hyejoo Yoon —T, “OAl) 5
Director aad “Tt
Conformity Policy Division
Enclosures

ce: Ramona Saar — NIST
Gerry Funk — NIST
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000837893
<NAME> 88AP
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         243,567
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  101,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               345,303
<PP&E>                                       4,855,712
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,682,252
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,518,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,274
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,492,489
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,518,763
<SALES>                                        346,895
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               364,558
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  239,607
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                124,951
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            124,951
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   124,951
<EPS-BASIC>                                      11.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
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
  Form 10-K
  (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: February 28, 2011
  /s/  Robert
    Qutub
  Robert Qutub
 Chief Financial Officer
10743.

#### Crews *v.*The State.

Bloodwoeth, J.

The special grounds of the motion for new trial show no such material error as requires the grant of a new trial in this ease. The verdict shows that the jury did not accept the theory of the defense that the accused, under the fears of a reasonable man that a felony was about to be committed on him, shot the deceased, and *427that they did not believe the statement of the accused. Under the evidence the killing was absolutely without justification, and the lowest grade of homicide of which‘Tt would be possible to find the defendant legally guilty under the evidence is that of voluntary manslaughter, and the jury having returned such a verdict, and the trial judge having approved it, this court will allow it to stand. *Vernon*v. *State,*146 *Ga.*709 (2), 712 (92 S. E. 76), and cases cited.

Decided November 7, 1919.

Indictment for murder; from Charlton superior court—Judge Summerall. June 21, 1919.

*John W. Bennett, James B. Thomas,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. B. Spence, solicitor-general,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Luhe, J., concur.*
10127.

#### Barber *v.*Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.

Decided September 19, 1919.

Action for damages; from Grady superior court—Judge Harrell. September 7, 1918.

*W. T. Crawford, W. V. Custer, Bell & Weathers,*for plaintiff.

*Pope & Bennet, W. J. Willie, A. P. Cain,*for defendant.

Stephens, J.

1. None of the excerpts from the charge excepted to, when considered in the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case, contains material error.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED WITH FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         307,272
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  153,684
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,053,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,633,950
<PP&E>                                       2,319,165
<DEPRECIATION>                                 104,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,851,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,232,863
<BONDS>                                        449,424
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        900
<COMMON>                                        24,254
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,144,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,851,681
<SALES>                                      3,342,060
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,342,060
<CGS>                                        3,395,013
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,395,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,766,890
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,627
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,733,355)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,733,355)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (3,927,261)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,660,616)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER and PRINCIPAL
       FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
          OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Everest Fund, L.P.
(the "Partnership"), for the quarter ended June 30, 2007,
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Lamoureux, President
of Everest Asset Management, Inc., the general partner of
the Everest Fund, L.P. (the "Fund"), hereby 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 results of operations of the Fund.


      By:  /s/ Peter Lamoureux
         ----------------------
      Name: 	Peter Lamoureux
      Title: 	Director, President and
      		Treasurer

     August 16, 2007


							E-3
From: Snyder, Julie N. <jsnyder@mitre.org>

Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 10:04 PM

To: privacyframework <privacyframework@nist.gov>

Subject: NIST Privacy Framework: Preliminary Draft Comments

Dear Privacy Framework team,

Thank you for your tireless work and collaboration across the widely varied stakeholder community to craft 

the Privacy Framework. MITRE has spent two decades working in privacy risk management and 

engineering. Between this experience and having seen firsthand the benefits of implementing the 

Cybersecurity Framework we are excited to see this new privacy risk management resource develop! 

Attached, please find our comments on the preliminary draft. These have been publicly released through 

MITRE and can be shared however you see fit. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Julie

 MITRE

Julie Snyder, CIPP/G/US, CIPM, CIPT

Principal, NCF Privacy Domain Capability Area Lead

jsnyder@mitre.org

202.491.1500

MITRE National Cybersecurity FFRDC (NCF)

Privacy Engineering @ MITRE

Cybersecurity @ MITRE