alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      13,550,961
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                218,649,336
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    677,988,095
<ALLOWANCE>                                  9,756,482
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             922,728,607
<DEPOSITS>                                 743,572,527
<SHORT-TERM>                               105,945,417
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         12,669,788
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,014,069
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,526,806
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             922,728,607
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             38,546,227
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            9,305,019
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            47,851,246
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          23,317,094
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          26,634,345
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       21,216,901
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                1,600,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              35,846
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             10,968,063
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,299,301
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  10,299,301
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,964,301
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.11
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.43
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                    27,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             8,145,982
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                    10,500
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            9,756,482
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         8,857,725
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        898,757


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,133,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,639,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   367,000
<INVENTORY>                                 22,725,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            46,575,000
<PP&E>                                      18,346,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,150,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             125,956,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,574,000
<BONDS>                                    111,537,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,182,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               125,956,000
<SALES>                                     44,176,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,176,000
<CGS>                                       33,925,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,925,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,227,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,211,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,813,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   648,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,165,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,165,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.14



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



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Launch Company Limited (the
Company) for the annual period ended 31 December 2006 (the Periodic Report), I, Rick Medlock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the
Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/    RICK MEDLOCKRick Medlock Chief Financial Officer




Date: 29 April 2008
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

–

–

-

-

- -

-

Cybersecurity

Apprenticeships

Why Apprenticeship? 

Registered apprenticeship1 programs are a promising approach for employers to attract, train, and 

retain a highly skilled cybersecurity workforce. 

Finding skilled cybersecurity talent is a critical and rapidly growing challenge for employers in every sector nationwide.

Registered apprenticeship programs allow participants to “earn while they learn” through a combination of paid 

hands on skills training and classroom instruction. Apprenticeships provide... 

employers with a proven, scalable method for building a steady pipeline of diverse, skilled talent

students (K12, 2-, and 4-year college and university) with paid work experience, an accelerated career pathway, 

and credit for coursework toward program requirements 

current workers with a career pathway for upskilling or re skilling 

Employers, K12 and post secondary educational institutions, and intermediary organizations (i.e., industry associations,

workforce boards, training providers) can sponsor registered apprenticeship programs for youth (ages 16 24) and adults. 

Apprentices make an average annual salary of 

$80,000 upon program completion.2

Apprentice Benefits 

Paid work from day one 

Real world job skill training 

Potential to earn college credit

Portable, national credential 

Opportunity to earn industry-recognized certifications 

Ability to access GI Bill benefits including monthly housing

allowance (MHA) 

Employer Benefits 

Employers hire apprentices and provide 

mentored, work based learning as well as

structured classroom (online, in person, or 

hybrid) technical instruction. 

Proven Return on Investment (ROI) $144 

for every $100 invested on average

Increased retention rates 90% of 

apprentices remain with employer for 1+ 

year following program completion

Network of federal, state, and local 

partners provide no cost support, 

expertise, and candidate pools 

Opportunities for federal and state tax

credits, and apprentice tuition benefits in 

some states 

97% of employers with registered apprenticeship 

programs recommend it as a training model.2

Learn more and join the NICE Apprenticeships 

in Cybersecurity Community of Interest: 

https://www.nist.gov/nice 

Cybersecurity Apprentice Roles 

There are U.S. Department of Labor-approved apprenticeable 

cybersecurity occupations for entry-and mid-level roles such as: 

Cloud Operations Specialist 

Computer Forensics Analyst 

Cybersecurity Support Technician 

Cybersecurity Incident Response Analyst 

Network Security Administrator 

Information Security Engineer 

Penetration Tester 

1) Cybersecurity apprenticeship programs are approved and 

registered by either the U.S. Department of Labor or a State Program completers earn $300,000 more over their 

Apprenticeship Agency (SAA). careers than non apprentice peers.2

2) Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Apprenticeship.gov 

nist.gov/nice

updated October 2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

  
        <S> <C>
  
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
  
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
ENTIRETY BY REFEERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
  
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
  
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                               4,321
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                    1,170,136
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 1,320,437
<PP&E>                               5,853
<DEPRECIATION>                         143
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,388,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              251,425
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                      1,457,198
<COMMON>                         1,522,055
<OTHER-SE>                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     1,388,986
<SALES>                              8,363
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     8,608
<CGS>                               24,683
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       38,548
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    82,522
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (112,462)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                      (112,462)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.05)
 
        

</TABLE>
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE 

NIST PRIVACY FRAMEWORK

Mali Yared

February, 2019
PRIVACY FRAMEWORK FUNCTIONS

ASSESS READINESS 

& COMPLIANCE 

MATURITY

DETECT 

VULNERABILITIES 

AND THREATS

COMMUNICATION 

& RESPONSE

PROTECT 

PERSONAL DATA

Privacy 

Lifecycle

Privacy or personal data protection regulations are spread across many industries, market segments, and 

geographical locations. Privacy Lifecycle can be broken down into 5 functions that closely mirrors the NIST CSF. 

GOVERNANCE
PRIVACY FUNCTIONS BROKEN BY CATEGORIES

ASSES 

readiness and 

compliance 

maturity

➢ Comprehensive

Privacy Assessment 

Framework (all 

industry and 

geographical area)

➢ Individual 

Regulation: 

- HIPAA 

Assessment

- GDPR 

Assessment

➢ Privacy Impact 

Assessment

DETECT 

vulnerabilities 

and threats

➢ Internal/External 

threat analysis

➢ Event logging and 

monitoring 

capabilities

➢ Deidentification 

and Anonymization

PROTECT 

personal data

➢ Data Identification 

& Mapping 

➢ Data 

categorization and 

classification

➢ Privacy by Design 

(Design & build 

security 

architecture)

➢ Right to be 

forgotten

Establish a 

GOVERNANCE 

model

➢ Steering 

Committee, virtual 

DPO

➢ Policies

➢ Change / 

compliance 

management 

procedures

Communication 

and RESPONSE

➢ Privacy policy

➢ Data subject 

notification

➢ Incident Response 

Capabilities

➢ Breach notification 

plan

➢ Cookie Consent 

notice

➢ Right to be 

forgotten

Privacy’s 5 functions can be further broken down into categories that explore areas in cybersecurity, legal and 

compliance, governance, and IT. Some categories are represented in the chevron’s below (these are only high level 

and can be further refined)
PRIVACY & SECURITY OVERLAP

Cybersecurity firms are interested in Privacy as there are overlapping points of interest

• The requirements in Privacy, can be closely aligned with those in most of the current 

Cybersecurity frameworks. 

• The protection measures used for cyber security can be directly, or with minor adjustment be 

applied to Privacy requirements

Focused on meeting the 

information requirements 

of the Organization while 

ensuring the protection 

of the rights of the 

individual in the 

collection, use and 

dissemination of personal 

data

Focused on protecting 

the information and 

information systems 

supporting the 

operations and assets 

of an organization

PRIVACY SECURITY

Privacy’s 

success is 

dependent on 

establishment of

basic foundation

for information

security
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6659

KENNETH C. HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JON P. GALLEY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-01- 663-L) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 2, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth C. Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Kenneth C. Hall, a state of Maryland inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Hall v. Galley , No. CA-01-663-L (D. Md. Apr. 4, 2001). 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
#### William Leppig v. A. Rudolph Bretzel and Amelia Bretzel.

*Preference among creditors*— Payment *to wife.*

A husband, who is, in good faith, in debt to his wife has a right to pay her claim in preference to the claims of other creditors; and if this-is done by having land deeded to her, for which he exchanged a stock of goods which had in turn been bought with the proceeds of land which had been purchased in part with her money, the deed cannot be set aside on a bill in aid of an execution against the husband.

Appeal from Kent.

Submitted April 20.

Decided April 25.

Creditor’s bill. Defendants appeal.

Reversed.

*John A. Fain-field*for complainant

*Stuart <& Sweet*for defendants.

Marston, J".

There is an entire absence of any showing of fraud in this case. It clearly appears that the defendant Amelia Bretzel had means of her own, as early as 1860, which she loaned to Mr. Desenberg or the firm of which he-was a member, and that from time to time out of her own earnings she added to the same — so that in 1863 or 1861 it amounted to about six hundred dollars. Her husband then *322purchased certain real estate, this money was used in part to pay for it, and the title thereto taken in his name.

This property was afterwards sold and the money put into the grocery business, which was carried on in the 'husband’s name. The whole amount which defendant Budolph had from his wife was $1200. This was a loan to him without interest, and when lie sold the stock of groceries a part of the consideration therefor was the lands in controversy deeded to his wife. That the defendant had the right to thus pay the debt he was owing his wife in preference to other creditors is not an open question in this court. While it may be that such transactions, owing to the relations existing between the parties, should be looked upon with suspicion and closely scrutinized, yet this case we consider clear and free from suspicion.

The decree must be reversed and the bill of complaint dismissed with costs of both courts.

Cooley and Campbell, JJ. concurred.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ZETH TRAWICK

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 2367

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. ________________________________/

Opinion filed August 25, 2017

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County

, Raul A. Zambrano and Margaret W. Hudson , Judge s

. Tiffany G atesh Fearing, of Suncoast Legal Group, P

. L

. , Spring Hill, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Zeth Tra wick ("Appellant") appeals the denial of two grounds of his twelve

- ground

motion for post conviction relief , filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure

3.850

. We affirm the denial of the first challenged ground without discussion. However,2

w e reverse the summary denial of the second ground and remand for an evidentiary

hearing.

T hroughout his trial for second

- degree murder , Appellant maintained that he killed

the victim in self

- defense . Nonetheless, the jury found Appellant guilty , and the trial court

sentenced him to life in prison. 1 Appellant subsequently filed a pro se motion for

postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by

failing to obta in exculpatory photographs and proceeding to trial without them.
Specifically, he argued p hotographs of his hands and arms

, taken by the DeL and Police

Department

, would have depicted a fresh cut , purportedly made by the victim 's knife

during the altercatio n that resulted in the victim's death

. Appellant argued these

photographs would have demonstrated that he had defensive wounds from attempting to

deflect an attack. The trial court summarily denied this claim.

T he record on appeal contains evidence that t rial counsel otherwise explored

Appellant's self

- defense theory and cross
- examined the medical examiner concerning the

injuries to bo th the victim and Appellant. However, this evidence does not conclusively

refute Appellant's c laim that the introduction of the photographs would have bolstered his

self

- defense argument, especially in response to the Sta te's introduction of photograph s
of the victim's defensive injuries and testimony from two witnesses denying the existence

of Appellant's injury

. Thus, we rev erse the trial court's summary denial of this ground and

remand for an evidentiary hearing on the matter. See Saunders v. State , 186 So. 3d 55,

1 We per curiam affirmed Appellant's direct appeal of the judgment and sentence. Trawick v. State , 46 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)

.3

57 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (" Because claim 2 is not conclusively refuted by the attached

record, we remand for an ev identiary hearing. ").

AFFIRMED in P art; REVERSED in P art; REMANDED with Instructions

.

ORFINGER , WALLIS and EISNAUGLE , JJ., concur.
Millipore Corporation
                                   Exhibit 11
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share
                      (In Thousands Except Per Share Data)
                                        
                                         Years Ended December 31,
Calculation of shares:        1995         1994          1993
Weighted average of shares                               
outstanding during the year   44,985 (b)   54,726 (b)    55,902 (b)
                                                         
Shares outstanding from                                  
 assumed exercise of stock    2,995        4,056         1,940
option
                                                         
(Treasury Method)             (1,737)          (2,856)     (1,746)

(NQ tax benefit)              (465)        (438)                (22)

Weighted average shares and                              
 common stock equivalents                                
 outstanding during the year  45,778 (a)   55,488 (a)    56,074 (a)
                                                         
 Additional shares assumed                               
 exercised with full                 0            0             0
dilution
                                                         
Weighted average of shares
 used in calculation of
fully
 diluted earnings per share    45,778(a)   55,488(a)     56,074(a)
                                                         
Net Income                    $ 85,354     $ 56,209      $34,603
                                                         
Earnings per common share as                             
 reported in  the                                        
Consolidated
 Financial Statements         $    1.90    $    1.03     $    0.62
                                                         
Primary earnings per common   $    1.86    $    1.01     $    0.62(a)
share                         (a)          (a)
                                                         
Net fully diluted earnings                               
per common share              $    1.86    $    1.01     $    0.62
                              (a)          (a)           (a)
                                                         
(a)These calculations are submitted in accordance
with Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Release N.
9083 although not required by APB No. 15 because
they result in dilutions of less than 3%.
(b)Represents weighted average of shares
outstanding used in the earnings per share
calculations.  Common stock equivalents for 1995,
1994, and 1993 were not included in the weighted
average share computation as they were less than
3% dilutive.
#### Prugh, Appellant, *v.*Hughel, Appellee.

(No. 2051

— Decided May 19, 1949.)

*Mr. Gus W. Byttner,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Harshman & Young,*for appellee.

By the Court.

This cause is submitted on motion of defendant-appellee to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that plaintiff-appellant has failed to comply with the requirements of rule VII, and that the order appealed from is not a final order.

On November 18, 1948, the appellant gave notice of intention to appeal on questions of law. More than 50 days have elapsed and the record shows that appellant has failed to file an assignment of errors, brief and bill of exceptions. The motion will be sustained for failure to comply with the provisions of rule VII.

The order appealed from is specifically designated as the order overruling the motion for new trial. After the verdict of the jury was returned, a motion for new trial was filed which was overruled. No judgment, was entered on the verdict. It is well settled that an order overruling a motion for new trial, without more, is not a final order from which an appeal on questions-*304of law may be prosecuted. 2 Ohio Jurisprudence (Rev.), 204, Section 106; *Robertson*v. *Penn-Ohio Coach Lines Co.,*137 Ohio St., 136, 138, 28 N. E. (2d), 358; *Champs*v. *Stone,*73 Ohio App., 319, 56 N. E. (2d), 251; *Mahaffey*v. *Stine,*28 Ohio Law Abs., 361; *Hauck*v. *Hauck,*29 Ohio Law Abs., 575; *Covington Building & Loan Assn.*v. *Yost,*31 Ohio Law Abs., 672; *Martin, Admr.,*v. *New York Central Rd. Co.,*32 Ohio Law Abs., 152. The motion to dismiss is sustained on tbe ground that tbe order appealed from is not a final order.

*Motion sustained.*

Miller, P. J., Hornbeck and Wiseman, JJ., concur.