alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Compositional Structures for Systems Engineering and Design

November 03-04, 2022

09:00 – 5:00 PM EDT

Nov 3, Thursday Nov 4, Friday

Start End Duration Speaker Start End Duration Speaker

9:00 9:10 0:10 NIST Introduction 9:00 9:45 0:45

Emergent effects and contextual behaviours 

in categorical systems theory

Jules Hedges

9:10 10:10 1:00

Compositionality and categorical 

thinking

Fabrizio Genovese 9:45 10:15 0:30

AlgebraicJulia: a compositional approach to 

technical computing

Evan Patterson

10:10 10:30 0:20

TBA

Esteban Montero 10:15 10:35 0:20

Compassionate Mathematics

Priyaa Srinivasan, Pawel Sobocinski

10:30 10:45 0:15 Break 10:35 11:00 0:25 Break (Group photo)

10:45 11:30 0:45

Multiple model synchronization with 

multiary delta lenses

Zinovy Diskin 11:00 11:45 0:45

Electrical circuits with string diagrams

Pawel Sobocinski

11:30 11:50 0:20

Sheafification as a critical design 

technique for 

creative preservation in complex 

systems

– principles, illustrations and first 

applications

Pascal Le Masson 11:45 12:30 0:45

Higher Knowledge Representation

Derek Wise

11:50 12:10 0:20

A contextual affordance model for 

autonomous systems

Angeline Aguinaldo 12:30 13:30 1:00 Lunch 

12:10 12:30 0:20

Category Theory as a possible 

theoretical foundation 

for Systems Engineering

David Perner 13:30 14:15 0:45

Mathematics of the solar system internet

Alan Hylton

12:30 13:30 1:00 Lunch 14:15 14:35 0:20

Azure Knowledge Marketplace: Categories 

for Scale

Donald Thompson

13:30 14:30 1:00

What are we tracking? 

How applied category theory puts 

thinking on rails

David Spivak 14:35 14:55 0:20

TBA

Joe Moeller

14:30 15:00 0:30

Algebraic Databases - Lessons 

Learned

Ryan Wisnesky 14:55 15:15 0:20

Sheaves: Where to Find them and How to 

Use them

Daniel Rosiak

15:00 15:15 0:15 Break 15:15 15:30 0:15 Break

15:15 16:00 0:45

Categories, formal methods, learning 

and 

compositional problems in autonomy

Georgios Bakirtzis 15:30 16:30 1:00 Discussion Session

16:00 17:00 1:00 Discussion Session 16:30 17:00 0:30 Presentation
Manufacturer Model(s) Modality Integration Status

Canon Cameras compatible with EDSDK 2.5.21Still photo (typically face) Full

CrossMatch

ACCO 1394 Single fingerprint (optical) Full

ID500 Slap & rolled fingerprints (optical) Full

ID700 Slap & rolled fingerprints (optical) Basic

LS/2 (Smiths-Heimann) Slap & rolled fingerprints (optical) Full

LScan Guardian (Firewire) Fingerprint (optical) Full

LScan Guardian (USB) Slap & rolled fingerprints (optical) Full

Verifier 300 Single fingerprint (optical) Full

Verifier 310 Dual fingerprint (optical) Basic

digitalPersona U.are.U 4000B Single fingerprint (optical) Full

Fujitsu PalmSecure Vascular palm Planned

i3 digID mini Slap & rolled fingerprints (optical) Planned

L-1 TouchPrint 4100 Slap & rolled fingerprints (optical) Planned

LG

IrisAccess 3000 Single iris Full

IrisAccess 4000 Dual iris In progress

OKI

IRISPASS-WG Dual iris Full

IRISPASS-M Dual iris Full

Olympus

Cameras compatible with the RyeNV SDK2Face Full

Cameras compatible with the "Mocha" SDK3Face Basic integration

Upek TCS1 Capacitive fingerprint In process

- Any DirectShow video source4 Video or still photo Basic

- Any DirectX audio source Voice Basic

A sensor with 'full' integration means that the Biometric Clients Lab has written a full plug-in for that sensor that demonstrably supports the major 

MBARK sensor operations (initialization, configuration, capture and download) on an independent thread. A sensor with 'basic' integration means 

that a rudamentary plug-in, with some the major operations, has been written and briefly tested.

1. Canon sensor plug-in was developed and tested with the Rebel XTi, EOS 40D, and EOS 5D Mark II. 

2. The RyeNV-based Olympus sensor plug-in was developed with the C-5050, C-5060, C-8080 and SP-350. T

3. he "Mocha"-based Olympus sensor plug-in was developed with the E-VOLT 520. 

4. The generic video & still sensor plugin was developed and tested with a Logictech Quickcam 4000

Table of biometric sensors and their current implementation status within MBARK

MBMBARK
10629.

#### Vogt *v.*Bridges.

Decided October 9, 1919.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court—Judge Bell. April 7, 1919.

*Chambers & Diclcey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Lcmton Nalley,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. There is no merit in the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions; and accordingly it is denied.

2. Under the facts of the case the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Hugo Aguilar v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-21-00680-CR

Trial court case number: 17-DCR-080285A

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant, Hugh Aguilar, has filed a Second Motion for Extension to File Appellate 

Brief. The motion is granted. Appellant’s brief is due August 8, 2022.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss_________

Acting individually 

Date: July 28, 2022
#### Willis Ward, Adm'r, *v.*Eliza Ward.

Wills — Election by Widow.

A will held not to put a testator’s widow upon her election whether ishe will take under the will and waive her right to distribution under the will.

APPEAL FROM METCALF CIRCUIT COURT.

December 29, 1872.

*239
      *Garnett, Dehoney, for appellant.*

*Leslie, Botts, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

We concur with the court below in the conclusion that the will of Willis Ward was not of a character to put the appellee on her election whether she would take the benefit of the special provision made in the third clause and waive her shares in distribution or renounce the will. And also in the opinion that it is manifestly in-ferable from the provisions of the will that the testator did not intend to exclude his wife from her distributive share of his estate, but that it should be embraced by the reservation made in her favor, in the first clause of the will.

We perceive no valid ground of objection to the details of the judgment.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4306 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4306

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act to improve 
 the process for verifying an individual's eligibility for employment.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4306

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act to improve 
 the process for verifying an individual's eligibility for employment.

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

SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENTS TO EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION SYSTEM.

    (a) In General.--Section 274A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting before ``A person or 
        entity has complied'' the following: ``Such attestation may be 
        manifested by either a hand-written or an electronic 
        signature.'';
            (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: 
        ``Such attestation may be manifested by either a hand-written 
        or an electronic signature.''; and
            (3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``a paper, microfiche, 
        microfilm, or electronic version of'' after ``must retain''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the earlier of--
            (1) the date on which final regulations implementing such 
        amendments take effect; or
            (2) 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Smith *v.*The State.

No. 6429.

November 14, 1928.

*Meredith & James,*for plaintiff in error.

*George M. Napier, attorney-general, George D. Anderson, solicitor-general, T. R. Gress, assistant attorney-general, Howard Tate,*and *Roscoe Piclcelt,*and *William, M. Howard,*contra.

Hile, J.

1. The motion to continue the case is without merit, being substantially the same as in the case of *Evans*v. *State,*ante, 261.

2. Grounds of the motion for new trial assigning error on admitting certain testimony are substantially the same as in the case of *Evans*v. *State,*supra, and are without merit.

3. The evidence in this case is substantially the same as in the case of *Evans*v. *State.*The two cases were argued together. In addition to the evidence in that case, which showed that all of the five defendants who were indicted were at the place of the homicide when it was committed, there is in the present case evidence, of certain witnesses, who testified to *threats*made by the defendant against the life of the deceased. The admission of this evidence over objection was not error. It had some probative value as to motive, and was not inadmissible on account of the lapse of time (about one year or more) between the making of the threats and the time of the homicide. *Shaw*v. *State,*60 *Ga.*246 (2); *Everett*v. *State,*62 *Ga.*65 (2).

4. Where, on the trial of one charged with murder, the defendant made a statement in his own behalf, a refusal to allow the defendant to make an additional statement can not be held erroneous, where the motion for new trial fails to disclose what additional statement the accused desired to make. *Peavy*v. *State,*114 *Ga.*260 (40 S. E. 234).

5. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All ike Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., who dissents.*
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. GE NE AU S T I N, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50082 D . C . N o. 5: 07 -c r- 00 14 6-S G L -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S t e phe n G . L a r s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry5, 2010

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , P R E G E R S O N , an d G R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. G e ne A us t i n appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on f ora s s aul t i ng aU ni t e d S t a t e s B ur e au of P r i s ons of

f i c e ri n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 111( a ) ( 1) , ( b) . A us t i n a r gue s tha tthe tri al co u rterred b ecau se i tfai l ed t o p ro v i d e th e j u ry w i th a su ffi ci en t l y p reci se i ns truc t i on tha tthe j urym us ta gr e e on the pa rt i c ul a rc onduc ttha tvi ol a t e d the 

# FI LED FEB 19 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

s ta tu te . W e d is a g r e e . E v e n a s s u m in g th a t A u s tin w a s e n title d to a“s p e c if ic u n a n im ity ” in s tru c tio n , s e e, e . g. , Sc had v . A r i z ona , 50 1 U . S . 62 4, 63 1-32 (199 1); U n ite d S ta te s v . G a v in , 95 9 F . 2d 78 8, 79 2 (9th C i r. 19 92 ), the di stri ctcourt in s tru c te d th e ju ryth a t th e ym u s t a g r e e o n th e “p a rtic u la ra c t th a t a m o u n te d to a s s aul t i ng, r e s i s t i ng, oppos i ng, i m pe di ng, i nt i m i da t i ng, ori nt e r f e r i ng” w i th the offi ce r. T hi s i nstruct i on w as adequat e. AF F I R ME D.
#### Neff Briggs, etc., *v.*Joel H. Cain.

Deeds — Pleading—Demurrer.

A demurrer to a petition to set aside a deed to land and subject tlie land to tlie payment of plaintiff’s debts was (tield properly overruled.

APPEAL PROM MORGAN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 9, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The demurrer to the petition was properly sustained. There is no allegation that Turner aided the sons of Davis in obtaining the deed for the land described, or that he was even cognizant of the alleged fraud; he occupies the attitude of an innocent purchaser for a valuable consideration, the petition alleging that he paid the purchase money in debts owing him by the father. A cancelment of the deed to the sons would avail the appellant nothing, as the land could not be subjected to the payment of the appellant’s debts, the legal title being in Turner. There is no allegation that the sons *74received any of the purchase money, but on the contrary, the whole' amount was paid by Turner to the father. The cáse is not within the act of 1856, as many years had elapsed front the conveyance to the institution of the suit.

*Hmelrigg, for appellants.*

*Cooper, for appellee.*

The judgment is *affirmed.*
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4064 

To require certain Federal service contractors to participate in a pilot program 

for employment eligibility confirmation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2004 

Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. 

SOUDER, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. ISSA, Mr. GOODE, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. KING

of Iowa, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. 

GALLEGLY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require certain Federal service contractors to participate 

in a pilot program for employment eligibility confirmation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Contractor 

5 Security Act’’. 
2 

•HR 4064 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING CERTAIN FEDERAL SERVICE CONTRAC2 TORS TO PARTICIPATE IN PILOT PROGRAM. 

3 Section 402(e)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform 

4 and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 

5 1324a note) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(C) CERTAIN FEDERAL SERVICE CON8 TRACTORS.—The following entities shall elect to 

9 participate in a pilot program and shall comply 

10 with the terms and conditions of such an elec11 tion: 

12 ‘‘(i) A contractor who has entered into 

13 a contract with the Federal Government to 

14 which section 2(b)(1) of the Service Con15 tract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 351(b)(1)) 

16 applies, and any subcontractor under such 

17 contract. 

18 ‘‘(ii) A contractor who has entered 

19 into a contract exempted from the applica20 tion of such Act by section 6 of such Act 

21 (41 U.S.C. 356), and any subcontractor 

22 under such contract.’’. 

Æ
Order entered July 27, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00328
- CV THE CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant

V. 6101 MOCKINGBIRD, LL C, Appellee On Appeal from the Count y Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 15
- 06071
- E



### O RDER Before the Court is appellee’s July 25, 2018 agreed second motion for an extension of
time to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to August 7, 2018 . W e caution appellee that further extension requests in this accelerated appeal will be disfavored.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000945821
<NAME> CAPSTAR RADIO BROADCASTING PARTNERS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         216,657
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,688
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               275,516
<PP&E>                                         146,792
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,404
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,587,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          120,087
<BONDS>                                        204,875
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,583
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,007,799
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,587,690
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,075
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,336
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   632
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,072)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,186)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,886)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,886)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4306 

To amend section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act to improve 

the process for verifying an individual’s eligibility for employment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2004 

Mr. CANNON (for himself and Mr. ANDREWS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act to improve the process for verifying an individual’s 

eligibility for employment. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENTS TO EMPLOYMENT 

4 VERIFICATION SYSTEM. 

5 Section 274A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality 

6 Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before ‘‘A 

8 person or entity has complied’’ the following: 

9 ‘‘Such attestation may be manifested by either 

10 a hand-written or an electronic signature.’’; 
2 

•HR 4306 IH 

1 (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘Such attestation may be manifested by either a 

4 hand-written or an electronic signature.’’; and 

5 (3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘a paper or 

6 electronic version of’’ after ‘‘must retain’’. 

Æ
10610.

#### Holt *v.*Georgia Railway & Power Company.

Stephens, J.

1. Lost earning capacity being an entirely separate and distinct item of damage from pain and suffering, and it being the duty of the trial judge to submit to the jury all of the substantial issues made by the pleadings and the evidence, it follows that, where in a suit for personal injuries a claim for future impaired earning capacity was one of the substantial issues made by the pleadings and the evidence, the law relative thereto should have been given in charge to the jury, without special request therefor.

2. Where in such a case the petition sets out the petitioner’s injuries and alleges, “that he now *suffers from*the same and will continue to suffer from the same as long as he lives, . . [and] that on account of said injuries he has lost entirely his earnings since the date of said injury, and that his earning capacity is destroyed,” and where the evidence shows such physical injuries to the plaintiff, from which a jury may reasonably infer that the plaintiff has been permanently or totally disabled and will continue so for any period of time in the *608future, the issue as to lost earning capacity, both partial and total, is presented.

Decided December 16, 1919.

Action for damages; from Fulton superior court—Judge Bell. March 28, 1919.

*McClelland & McClelland, B. B. Arnold, Boy 8. Brennan,*for plaintiff.

*Colquitt & Conyers,*for defendant.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
#### Amos McDaniel & Moore *v.*N. E. Vaughn.

Husband and Wife — Liability for Goods Purchased.

The fact that goods purchased by the Wife were, without her knowledge and consent, charged to her instead of her husband, will not make her a debtor instead of the husband.

■APPEAL FROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

February 27, 1873.

*John A. Middleton, for appellants.*

*A. G. Roberts, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

We must concur in the opinion of the court below that there is no sufficient evidence in the record to authorize a judgment subjecting the estate of Mrs. Vaughn to the payment of the note executed for the goods sold and delivered. Neither the appellant, Moore, nor his clerk, Penniston, made any statement from which it can be inferred that the appellee knew- when these goods were being purchased that they were charged to her. The mere fact that the goods were charged to the wife in the absence of any knowledge of this fact on her part or an agreement to that effect will not make her the debtor instead of the husband. . .She also states that no such agreement was made and that the goods were purchased on the credit of her husband or that of Boone, and not upon the faith Of any promise or pledge on his part.

The judgment is *affirmed.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the use in the Prospectus constituting part of this
Registration Statement on Form S-4 of Chesapeake Energy Corporation of our
report dated September 20, 1995, except for the fourth paragraph of Note 9
which is as of October 9, 1997, and except for the earnings per share
information as described in Note 1, which is as of March 24, 1998, relating to
the financial statements of Chesapeake Energy Corporation, which appears in such
Prospectus on page F-3. We also consent to the reference to us under the
heading "Experts".


/s/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP


PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Houston, Texas
June 17, 1998
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-76817, 333-72841, and 333-41863) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-121868 and 333-112464) of Mechanical Technology Incorporated of our reports dated March 2, 2005, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

 

/s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

Albany, New York

March 14, 2005