alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Handwriting Database Panel

Danica M. Ommen, SDSU

JoAnn Buscaglia, FBI CTFR Unit

Ted Burkes, FBI QD Unit 

Christopher Saunders, SDSU

Peter Tytell, NYC
Handwriting Comparison

• Handwriting Examinations 

cursive, print, numerals, signatures

• Generally side by side comparison,

• Questioned writing to Known writing

Q to K specific source

• Questioned writing to Questioned writing

Q to Q common source
Operational Databases

used to associate documents and cases

FISH (Forensic Identification System for Handwriting)

US Secret Service (BKA) 

threats to the POTUS and some others 

uses actual evidence images 

requires manual input of handwriting characteristics

associates based on handwriting properties.

Anonymous Letter File

Bank Robbery Note File

FBI Lab 

use actual evidence images

significant text entered into the database

associations made by wording

more by HW comparisons of multiple submissions
Purposes of Research Datasets 

• Evaluation of automated technology

• Evaluation of human performance (“black box”)

• Assessment of rarity of writer profile and random 

match probabilities

– quality and quantity of features for conclusions

• Research on 

kinematics of handwriting

variability of handwriting with age of writer 

(i.e., long-term and short-term within-writer variability)

Extant Research Datasets

FBI 500 dataset (~ 500)

IRB approval did not include public release 

Very difficult if not impossible to get retroactive approval 

FBI IRB requires subject/writer to consent to new use

FBI – WVU dataset 

(currently sequestered for ongoing research, but some 

will be available for release in the future)

Others

NIST has 2 listed on its catalog 

for the Census (handprinting and numerals) 

Chinese 

Cedar Fox collection (NIJ funded)

Lisa Hanson (NIJ funded)
Collecting Datasets 

that are fit-for-purpose

• Collection design depends on intended use 

– What/how much data should it contain?

– What should it be representative of?

– Are convenience samples adequate?

• Existing data vs targeted collection

– Can we use public collections (accumulations)

for extracting features?

• Library of Congress & National Archives collections 

• Federal Forms (e.g., Census, INS, Voter) 

– No ground truth

– Could be outdated handwriting (i.e., an old copybook)

– Limited instances per writer to characterize writer profile

– Prison populations
Distorted Writing and Signatures 

Simulation or Disguise?

Simulations 

– freehand drawn copies from a model

– freehand written from memory

– tracing

• Choice of disguise strategy

• Skill level of the Simulators/Disguisers

• Complexity and fluency of the model

• Disease/intoxication/old age/dementia
Controlled Capture Mechanisms 

Pen & paper capture 

and digital conversion for dataset 

– dynamic features that QDE uses lost

– limit to QDE conclusion with non-original documents 

• Digital capture

– No Conversion

– Captures dynamic features 

(e.g., acceleration, pressure patterns)

– Needs paper for writer feedback FDE examination
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheets for Metaline Mining & Leasing Company at December 31,1998, the Statements
of Income for the year ended December 31, 1998, and is qualified in its entirety
by  reference  to  such  financial  statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,039,809
<SECURITIES>                                    13,718
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,053,527
<PP&E>                                           3,911
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,057,438
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,806
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       954,282
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,057,438
<SALES>                                        727,157
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               727,157
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,254
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                710,903
<INCOME-TAX>                                   170,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            540,403
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   540,403
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        







</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Income Partners 1988-A, Ltd's balance sheet and statement of operations
contained in its form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         1,952
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  161,360
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               163,312
<PP&E>                                         10,185,956
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,325,411)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,027,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          275,280
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,716,406
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,027,708
<SALES>                                        612,440
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               617,927
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  444,439<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                90,923
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            90,923
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   90,923
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation deple-
tion and amortization expense. Excludes general and administrative and interest
expense.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7258

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DIIJON TIMMONS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, 

Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00092-NKM-7; 3:08-cv-80066-NKM)

Submitted: September 17, 2012 Decided: September 26, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Diijon Timmons, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Diijon Timmons seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2011). We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a 

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty 

days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 

214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on June 13, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on August 17, 

2011, when it was delivered to prison officials for mailing.

Because Timmons failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to 

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal. We deny a certificate of appealability and 

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
**EXHIBIT 23**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Number 333-73306 on Form S-8 dated November14, 2001, the Registration Statement Number 333-100841 on Form S-8 dated October 30, 2002, the Registration StatementNumber 333-129160 on Form S-8 dated October 20, 2005 and the Registration Statement Number 333-141620 on Form S-8 datedMarch 28, 2007 of our reports with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Mentor Corporation,and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Mentor Corporation, included in this AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 2008.
/s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Los Angeles, California
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 16

                     [LANE GORMAN TRUBITT, LLP LETTERHEAD]




June 12, 1998

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Gentlemen:

We have read the statements made by Clark/Bardes Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company"), which we understand will be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, pursuant to Item 11(i) of Form S-1, as part of the Company's
registration statement on Form S-1. We agree with the statements concerning our
firm in such Form S-1.


                                        /s/  LANE GORMAN TRUBITT, LLP
                                             Lane Gorman Trubitt, LLP
<PAGE>   1




                              TCC INDUSTRIES, INC.
                   504 LAVACA, SUITE 1004, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701


                                                                    Exhibit 3.22


                             1997 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
                      THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF
                              TCC INDUSTRIES, INC.



        Section 3.02 of the Third Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended, of
TCC Industries, Inc., a Texas corporation (the "Corporation"), was amended by
action of the Board of Directors of the Corporation duly taken at a meeting of
said Board held on July 2, 1997, by deleting the first sentence thereof (as
amended by 1997 Amendment No. 1 to Third Amended and Restated Bylaws of TCC
Industries, Inc.) and inserting in lieu of such sentence, the following:

         "The Board of Directors shall consist of eight (8) members, each to
hold office until the next annual meeting of shareholders or until his or her
successor shall be elected and shall have qualified."

         The undersigned Secretary of the Corporation hereby certifies that the
foregoing is true and correct.

DATED as of July 2, 1997.


                                                     /s/ ROBERT THOMAJAN
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Robert Thomajan, Secretary



                                       49
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 on Form 10-QSB of Patriot Scientific
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jeffrey E. Wallin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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:

         1)       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended; and

         2)       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


                                                    /S/ JEFFREY E. WALLIN
                                                    ---------------------
                                                    Name:  Jeffrey E. Wallin
                                                    Title:  President and CEO
                                                    Date: October 15, 2003
| **** |
|------|

**Exhibit 10.**

 

 

**JOINDER NUMBER 2006-1**

**TO**

**TAX SHARING AGREEMENT**

 

This Joinder Number 2006-1 to Tax Sharing Agreement, dated January 20, 2006, is entered into by and between ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (“ILIAC”) and ING America Insurance Holdings, Inc. (“ING”), on its own behalf and on behalf of each of its subsidiaries that are currently parties to that certain Tax Sharing Agreement hereinafter described (the “Subsidiaries”).   

 

WHEREAS, ING and the Subsidiaries are members of an affiliated group, as that term is defined in Section 1504 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, which expects to file a consolidated federal income tax return for each taxable year during which the Subsidiaries are includible corporations qualified to so file; 

 

WHEREAS, ING and the Subsidiaries entered into that certain Tax Sharing Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Agreement”) to provide for the manner of computation of the amounts and timing of payments with regard to the consolidated federal income tax return of the affiliated group for each taxable year;

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5 of the Agreement, subsidiaries of ING that were not immediately eligible to join the affiliated group as of the effective date of the Tax Sharing Agreement are subsequently allowed to join when they become eligible to join the affiliated group; and  

 

WHEREAS, ILIAC has become an eligible subsidiary effective January 1, 2006 and in accordance with Section 5 of the Agreement is now eligible to join the affiliated group and become a party to the Agreement;    

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows:

 

| 1. | In accordance with Section 5 of the Agreement, effective January 1, 2006 (the “Effective Time”), ILIAC has joined in and become a party to the Agreement. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Notwithstanding paragraph 12 of the Agreement, with respect to ILIAC, the Agreement: (i) shall be effective from and after the Effective Time; and (ii) shall apply to taxable year 2006 and to all subsequent periods unless and until amended or terminated, as provided in Section 10 of the Agreement. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 3. | Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Joinder Number 2006-1, from and after the Effective Time, ILIAC shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4242 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4242

 To transfer jurisdiction over certain public lands from the Bureau of 
             Land Management to the Department of Defense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2004

  Mr. Pearce (for himself and Mr. Lewis of California) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To transfer jurisdiction over certain public lands from the Bureau of 
             Land Management to the Department of Defense.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN PUBLIC LANDS TO 
              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

    (a) Jurisdiction Transfer.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
transfer to the Secretary of Defense jurisdiction over all public 
lands--
            (1) under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land 
        Management;
            (2) withdrawn from appropriation under the public land 
        laws; and
            (3) reserved for use by the Armed Forces for military 
        activities.
    (b) Deadline.--The transfer shall be accomplished not later than 1 
year after the date of the enactment of this section.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE v. BROWN

No. 120P97

Case below: 120 N.C.App. 647

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed 5 June 1997.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

135989 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 135989 COA: 273488 Ottawa CC: 05-028876-FC MICHAEL ALLEN MILLER, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is GRANT ED, limited to the issues: (1) whether the Cour t of Appeals erred in reversi ng the defendant’s conviction and remanding this case to the circu it court for a new trial pursuant to People v DeHaven, 321 Mich 327 (1948); (2) whether DeHaven was wrongly decided or has been superseded by MCL 600.1354(1); (3) whet her a criminal defendant must establish actual prejudice pursuant to MCL 600.1354(1) where the ch allenged juror was excusable for cause; (4) how the “actual prejudice” standard for pu rposes of MCL 600. 1354(1) sh ould be defined; and (5) whether the juror’s failure to disclose his status as a felon, which disqualified him from serving on the jury , constituted structural error pursuant to Neder v United States, 527 US 1; 119 S Ct 1827; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999).

The Criminal Defense A ttorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups
interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

s0506 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 9, 2008

Clerk
10480.

#### Davis *v.*The State.

1. In a criminal case where a ground of the defendant’s motion for a new trial is that one of the jurors was related within the prohibited degrees to the prosecutor in the ease, and the newly discovered evidence as to the alleged relationship is that of witnesses, the provisions of section 6086 of the Civil Code of 1910, as to supporting affidavits, do not apply. However, *independently of that section, the trial fudge,*upon the hearing of such a motion, *has the authority, in his discretion,*to require the production of affidavits as toy the residence, associates, means of knowledge, character and credibility, of the affiants who depose as to the relationship of the juror to the prosecutor.

2. In such a case as is above referred to, where the affidavits of the witnesses relied on to sustain the allegations as to the relationship do not *777meet any of the requirements of section 5764 of the Civil Code, and it is not shown that the affiants were related by blood or marriage to the persons in question, or that they were testifying from any personal knowledge, or from what source they obtained their information, this court can not hold, as a matter of law, that the alleged relationship was so clearly established that the trial judge erred in overruling the ground of the motion for a new trial based upon the alleged relationship.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Decided February 24, 1920.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from Warren superior court— Judge Walker. March 10, 1919.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

*L. D.*McGregor, for plaintiff in error.

*R. 0.*Norman, solicitor-general, *M. L.*Felts, contra.

Broyles, C. J.

The first two headnotes above are, in substance, the rulings of the Supreme Court in answer to questions certified by this court. For elaboration thereof see the full opinion rendered by the Supreme Court, 150 *Ga.*(102 S. E. 444).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luhe and*Bloodworth, JJ., *concur.*