alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10966.

#### Morrow *v.*The State.

Decided December 9, 1919.

Indictment for sale of intoxicating liquor; from Gordon superior court—Judge Tarver. August 30, 1919.

*M. B. Eubanks,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. M. Lang, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where several rulings are complained of in a bill of exceptions in a criminal case, and where no exceptions pendente lite were filed, the reviewing court can consider only those rulings that were made within twenty days of the tendering of the bill of exceptions. *Regopoulas*v. *State,*115 *Ga.*232 (1) (41 S. E. 619). Under this ruling the assignment of error in the bill of exceptions upon the overruling of the defendant’s plea in abatement can not be considered.

2. The other assignments of error, not having been argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*LuJce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4329 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4329

  To suspend temporarily the duty on Glycine, N,N-Bis[2-hydroxy-3-(2-
propenyloxy)propyl]-, monosodium salt, reaction products with ammonium 
   hydroxide and pentafluoroiodoethane-tetrafluoroethylyene telomer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2004

  Mr. Forbes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on Glycine, N,N-Bis[2-hydroxy-3-(2-
propenyloxy)propyl]-, monosodium salt, reaction products with ammonium 
   hydroxide and pentafluoroiodoethane-tetrafluoroethylyene telomer.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON GLYCINE, N,N-BIS[2-HYDROXY-3-(2-
              PROPENYLOXY)PROPYL]-, MONOSODIUM SALT, REACTION PRODUCTS 
              WITH AMMONIUM HYDROXIDE AND PENTAFLUOROIODOETHANE-
              TETRAFLUOROETHYLYENE TELOMER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.38.41       Glycine, N,N-      Free         No Change        No Change        On or Before 12/  ''.
                         Bis[2-hydroxy-3-                                                   31/2007
                         (2-
                         propenyloxy)propy
                         l]-, monosodium
                         salt, reaction
                         products with
                         ammonium
                         hydroxide and
                         pentafluoroiodoet
                         hane-
                         tetrafluoroethyly
                         ene telomer
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3809.92.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Easterling *v.*Farrell.

Opinion delivered January 21, 1929.

*938
      *J. R. Parker,*for appellant.

*A.*A. *Poff, Claude M. Cruce*and *W. R. Donham,*for appellee.

*939Kirby, J.

The undisputed testimony shows that the deceased, after his marriage, had established his home at McGehee, in Desha County, where he and his 'wife lived and kept house for four years, and where his work as fireman on the railroad required his residence, and where his membership in the order of locomotive firemen was. kept until his death. He went down into Louisiana later, following his occupation of a railroad fireman, but never lived with his wife, who had abandoned him, nor established a home there.

The fact that deceased, after leaving MoGehee, was down in Louisiana following his occupation of a railroad fireman, would not change his domicile or residence, under the circumstances of this case, from MoGehee, in Desha County, where it had been established, it not being shown that he had established a home or residence in Louisiana except as indicated. *Crone*v. *Cooper,*43 Ark. 552; *State Life Insurance Co.*v. *Ford,*101 Ark. 521, 142 S. W. 863; *Wheat*v. *Smith,*50 Ark. 266, 7 S. W. 161.

The testimony shows conclusively that deceased had established his' home and residence with his wife at McGehee, in Desha County, where he worked and remained for four years after his marriage, necessarily showing am abandonment of any home or residence he might have had theretofore in Chicot County, and, such being the case, with letters of administration issued on his estate in that county, where the residence was shown to have been established, the burden of proof was correctly declared by the court to be upon the appellant, who attacked the legality of the issuance of letters of administration to appellee on the ground that his intestate was not a resident of Desha County, where the letters were issued.

The verdict of the jury is amply supported by the testimony, and the judgment is affirmed.
Amendment No. 2 to Officer Deferred Compensation Plan


 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 
 THE PMI GROUP, INC. 
 OFFICER DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
  
 THE PMI GROUP, INC., having adopted The PMI Group, Inc. Officer Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) effective
as of July 1, 1997, hereby amends the Plan, effective as of January 1, 2005, as follows: 
  
 1. Section 3.3 is hereby amended by deleting the last sentence thereof and substituting the following sentence therefor: 
  
 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, no more than a total of 250,000
additional shares of Company common stock may be delivered to (a) Participants in this Plan pursuant to Company Contributions credited hereunder on or after the date of the Company’s annual meeting in 2004, and (b) participants in The
PMI Group, Inc. 2005 Officer Deferred Compensation Plan pursuant to “Company Contributions” credited thereunder.” 
  
 2. A new Section 10.10 is hereby added immediately after Section 10.9 to read as follows: 
  
 “10.10 Transfer of Unvested Company
Contributions. Notwithstanding any contrary Plan provision, all unvested Company Contributions that were credited to Participants’ Accounts as of December 31, 2004 (as adjusted for deemed investment returns, gains and losses thereon)
shall be transferred to The PMI Group, Inc. 2005 Officer Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Successor Plan”) effective as of January 1, 2005 for distribution under the terms of the Successor Plan.” 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The PMI Group, Inc., by its duly authorized officer, has
executed this Amendment No. 2 to the Plan on the date indicated below. 
  

			
	 THE PMI GROUP, INC.

		
	 By
	 	 /s/ Charles Broom

	 Title:
	 	Senior Vice President
From: Jennifer Huddleston <Jhuddleston@mercatus.gmu.edu>

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 10:51 AM

To: privacyframework <privacyframework@nist.gov>

Cc: Anne Hobson <Ahobson@mercatus.gmu.edu>; aparson6 

<aparson6@masonlive.gmu.edu>

Subject: Submission of Comments

Attached please find comments regarding the proposed draft of the NIST Privacy 

Framework on behalf of myself and my Mercatus Center at George Mason University 

colleagues Anne Hobson and Anna Parsons.

Sincerley,

Jennifer Huddleston

Research Fellow, The Fourth Branch, Project on Innovation and Governance

Mercatus Center at George Mason University
#### Beth Ann FARAGHER; Nancy Ewanchew, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. CITY OF BOCA RATON, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, Bill Terry; David Silverman, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-4878.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Feb. 4, 1999.

William R. Amlong, Amlong & Amlong. P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Carolyn L. Wheel*1153er, EEOC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees.

Cathy M. Stutin, Peter J. Hurtgen, Morgan, Lewis & Boekius, Miami, FL, for City of Boca Raton.

Michael T. Burke, Christine M. Duignan, Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke & George, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Bill Terry.

Before, HATCHETT, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and KRAVITCH, Senior Circuit Judge.

BY THE COURT:

The judgment of the district court is hereby REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.
#### Jesse H. Rodman *v.*John A. Miller.

Contracts — Liability of Surety.

Where M. surrendered a mule to C. upon the promise of R., in consideration of the surrender, to pay M.’s note to G., upon R.’s failure to pay the note, and payment of same by M., R. is liable to* M. for the amount paid by M*.

APPEAL, FROM LARUE CIRCUIT COURT.

December 23, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The weight of testimony heard upon the trial conduces to show that Rodman agreed to pay off the note, if the appellee would surrender the mule to Churchill. The mule was delivered up by the appellee, and Smith at the same time held his note for the ninety dollars. If the fraud existed as is claimed by Churchill and Rod-man it was their duty and not Miller’s to institute proceedings for the purpose of vacating the contract, or recovery for the alleged fraud. So far as the proof shows Miller was an innocent purchaser. The instructions are to some extent conflicting, but this trouble arises, from' the instructions given at appellant’s instance. They were prejudicial to the appellee and did not contain the law of the case. The jury were told that Miller, the appellee, could not recover unless he had been compelled by law to pay the note to Smith or his assignee. In another instruction they were told that it was appellee’s duty, if he believed the note he had executed to Smith was without consideration to, notify Rodman to defend the suit. The testimony is that Rodman agreed with Miller to pay the note off, and it was his duty to have done so, or to have taken steps to save Miller harmless in the premises. Miller was in no condition to defend the suit upon the note for the want of consideration in its execution. He gave the note to Smith and received as consideration therefor this mule, and afterwards surrendered it to Rodman upon the latter’s promise to pay it, or in the language of the witness, “to take it up.” This surrender was made without Smith’s knowledge or consent. Miller was not compelled to subject himself to the *149expense of a litigation in regard to the fraud, if any, practiced by Smith upon Churchill. The appellant knew that the note on ap-pellee had been assigned to Uptigrove, and said to the latter, that he, Rodman, was bound for it. This witness proves that Miller paid him $115 on the note.

The substance of the instructions given for appellee is that if appellee surrendered the mule to Churchill at the instance of Rod-man- and that Rodman in consideration of the surrender agreed to pay the note to Smith, and that he failed to do so and the same was paid off by the appellee, that Rodman is liable to him1 for the amount paid. This instruction embraces the law of the case, as it is immaterial whether Miller paid the note with or without credit upon it.

The judgment of the court below is *affirmed.*
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 417

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 20, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT

To revoke a Public Land Order with respect to certain lands 

erroneously included in the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge, California.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 417 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF PUBLIC LAND ORDER WITH 

2 RESPECT TO LANDS ERRONEOUSLY IN3 CLUDED IN CIBOLA NATIONAL WILDLIFE 

4 REFUGE, CALIFORNIA. 

5 Public Land Order 3442, dated August 21, 1964, is 

6 revoked insofar as it applies to the following described 

7 lands: San Bernardino Meridian, T11S, R22E, sec. 6, all 

of lots 1, 16, and 17, and SE1⁄4 of SW1 8 ⁄4 in Imperial 

9 County, California, aggregating approximately 140.32 

10 acres. 

11 SEC. 2. RESURVEY AND NOTICE OF MODIFIED BOUND12 ARIES. 

13 The Secretary of the Interior shall, by not later than 

14 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act—

15 (1) resurvey the boundaries of the Cibola Na16 tional Wildlife Refuge, as modified by the revocation 

17 under section 1; 

18 (2) publish notice of, and post conspicuous 

19 signs marking, the boundaries of the refuge deter20 mined in such resurvey; and
3

HR 417 RFS 

1 (3) prepare and publish a map showing the 

2 boundaries of the refuge.

Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
Exhibit 10.137

MECHANICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.

					November 19, 2004

Juan Becerra

15 Fryer Lane

Altamont, NY  12009

Re:  Vice President Technology and Business Development of MTI MicroFuel Cells Inc.
Dear Juan:

		This letter will memorialize our agreement with respect to the terms of your employment with MTI MicroFuel Cells Inc. ("MTIMFC" or the "Company").  You will be Vice President of Technology and Business Development of MTIMFC.  

	Base Salary and Bonus.  Your salary will be $200,000 per year.  In addition, you will be eligible to receive an annual bonus in the form of stock options to purchase MTIMFC common stock, as determined by your supervisor.  

Other Benefits.  You will be eligible for all benefits generally available to employees and officers of the Company including the Company' 401(k) plan and health insurance plan.  You will be eligible for three (3) weeks of paid vacation annually (which shall accrue based upon your work schedule at the time of the accrual).  

Termination of Employment.  In the event that your employment is terminated by both MTI and MTIMFC without "cause", you will receive (i) three months of salary continuation payments and (ii) continued coverage for three months under the Company' health insurance plans, on the same terms as during your employment.  At the end of that three month period, you shall be entitled to group health continuation coverage in accordance with Section 4980B of the Code.  For purposes of this agreement, "cause" shall mean (i) your gross misconduct, negligence, theft, dishonesty, fraud, or gross dereliction of duties; (ii) your indictment on any felony charge or a misdemeanor charge involving theft, moral turpitude or a violation of the federal securities laws (whether or not related to your conduct at work); or (iii) your death or permanent disability (consistent with the requirements of state and federal law).

You agree to devote your full energy and attention to the Company.

	The provisions of any agreement (other than your original offer letter) between you and the Company or any of their affiliates, including, but not limited to, any non-competition agreement, shall continue to be effective, in accordance with the terms of any such agreement.    If the foregoing is acceptable, please countersign this letter in the space provided below and return it to me.

						Sincerely,

						/s/William Acker
						William Acker

						CEO

Agreed & Accepted:

 

 

/s/Juan Becerra____________

Juan Becerra

November 19, 2004_________

Date
#### Reuben Hewett v. Jesse Chapman et al.

*Jurors as witnesses*— Proof *of former testimony*— Verdict.

Jurors are competent witnesses to prove wliat testimony lias been given? upon a trial in wbicli they have served. But they cannot be examined as to the elements of their verdict nor as to the deliberations by which it was reached; the verdict itself is the best evidence of the result of their deliberations.

Error to Kalamazoo.

Submitted June 16.

Decided June 21.

Trove'R. Plaintiff brings error.

Beversed.

*Oscar T. Tuthill*for appellant.

*Howard & Boos*for appellees.

Marston, J.

This was an action of trover commenced in justice’s court, where the plaintiff recovered judgment,, which on *certiorari*to the circuit was reversed.

The plaintiff’s claim was for a quantity of wood, cut from trees purchased from defendants and paid for in work and labor performed for them, and the defendants’ position was-that the plaintiff had brought an action of *assumpsit*for such work and labor and recovered a judgment in that action, and that therefore the trees and wood cut therefrom was not the property of the plaintiff.

In the present casé the plaintiff, by calling as witnesses-some of the jurors in the former case, sought to prove that the defendants in the *assumpsit*case gave testimony tending to show and recognizing .plaintiff’s title to the trees and wood cut therefrom. This was admissible. *Schulenberg*v. *Merchants’ Bank of*Canada, 48 Mich. 102.

The defendants sought to show by the jurors in the *assumpsit*case, that in making or arriving at their verdict, they allowed the plaintiff for the full amount of labor claimed by him. This clearly was incompetent and properly rejected *5by the justice. A juror may be called, like any.other witness, to prove any fact pertaining to what took place in open court on the trial of a cause. To this • extent he stands as would a third person or stranger to the cause, and if the facts sought to be proven could be shown by third parties present, they may be by the jurors. When however the jury retire to deliberate upon their verdict to be given, their conversations and discussions, — their deliberations,— cannot be inquired into. The result of their deliberations is the only material fact; it is the one fact upon which the jury agreed, and that can best be shown by their verdict.

We are of opinion that the rulings of the justice were correct, and that the judgment of the circuit court must be reversed with costs of this court and of the circuit.

The other Justices concurred.
Speaker List/Agenda for June 15, 2023 IEG General, Annual Meeting

Updated 08/05/2023

James R. Matey, james.matey@nist.gov

First Name Last Name Affiliation Title/Topic Order

Start 

Time Length (min)

Blue Jeans Active to Test Login 1 08:30 20

Meeting Services 

Technician NIST Review of Blue Jeans for Participants 2 08:50 10

Introductions 3 09:00 0

James Matey NIST Housekeeping 4 09:00 5

Craig Watson NIST Welcome To NIST 5 09:05 5

Updates/Progress Reports 6 09:10 0

James Matey NIST IEG: Status Update/Progress Report 7 09:10 10

Bethany Retton FBI OSAC: Iris Task Group: Status Update 8 09:20 10

Stephanie Schuckers Clarkson

Exploring Biometrics with Mia and Sophia--An Educational Video Series-

-Update 9 09:30 15

Break 10 09:45 10

Technical Discussion - PAD 11 09:55 0

Dan Wernig APL Odin: Final results 12 09:55 30

Terry Watters Retired Effect of Presbyopia Drugs on Iris Recognition 13 10:25 30

Jay Doyle Mitre BIQT Contact Lens Detector 14 10:55 15

Arun Ross MSU iWarpGAN: Disentangling Identity and Style to Generate Iris DeepFakes 15 11:10 30

Angela Elliot NGI

NGI Iris Service risk mitigation effort through a presentation attack 

detection tool and future initiatives 16 11:40 30

Break - Lunch 17 12:10 30

Technical Discussions - Demographic Differentials 18 12:40 0

John Daugman Cambridge

Ethnicity and Biometric Entropy: Iris Individuality in a West African 

database 19 12:40 30

Patrick Grother NIST IREX-10: Demographic Differentials & ?? 20 13:10 30

Adam Czajka Notre Dame

Investigation of gender bias in iris recognition and presentation attack 

detection 21 13:40 30

Break 22 14:10 10

Algorithms, Datasets and Standards 23 14:20 0

Adam Czajka Notre Dame IREX-10: Open Source Algorithms 24 14:20 30

Priyanka Das HID Global

An Update on Longitudinal Performance of Iris Recognition in Children: 

Time Intervals up to Six years 25 14:50 30

David

Arnold

Ackerman

Estrada

Princeton Identity

Eyelock

Study of Spatial Resolution Requirements for Iris Acquisition 26 15:20 30

Closing 27 15:50 0

James Matey NIST Closing Remarks 28 15:50 5

Open Discussion/Coffee Hour 29 15:55 30

Meeting Ends 30 16:25 0
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4317 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4317

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic located in 
 Lufkin, Texas, as the ``Charles Wilson Department of Veterans Affairs 
                          Outpatient Clinic''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 2004

 Mr. Turner of Texas (for himself, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Bell, Mr. 
 Burgess, Mr. Carter, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Frost, Mr. Green 
 of Texas, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Hinojosa, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. 
 Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Paul, Mr. Reyes, Mr. 
 Sandlin, Mr. Stenholm, and Mr. DeLay) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic located in 
 Lufkin, Texas, as the ``Charles Wilson Department of Veterans Affairs 
                          Outpatient Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC, 
              LUFKIN, TEXAS.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic located in 
Lufkin, Texas, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be 
known and designated as the ``Charles Wilson Department of Veterans 
Affairs Outpatient Clinic''. Any reference to such outpatient clinic in 
any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the 
United States shall be considered to be a reference to the Charles 
Wilson Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.
                                 <all>
```
Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett has spent the last 20+ years of his career serving as an 

executive, a Fortune 100 consultant, and a federal employee. He is 

currently the Program Manager for the NIST Cybersecurity 

Framework, or simply the “Framework.” He leads this program 

through planning, team oversight and coordination, and outreach to 

industry and federal organizations. Matt works through those 

relationships to provide perspective and guidance, as well as gather 

input on the use and evolution of the Framework.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 120

Designating minority membership on certain standing committees of the

House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 17, 1997

Mr. PALLONE submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating minority membership on certain standing

committees of the House.

1 Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

2 that they are hereby, elected to the following standing

3 committees of the House of Representatives:

4 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRA5 STRUCTURE: Mr. Holden and Mr. Lampson.

6 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE: Mrs. Tauscher.

7 COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: Mr.

8 Davis of Florida.

9 COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY: Mr.

10 Rodriguez.
2

HRES 120 ATH

1 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES: Mr. Doggett.

2 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVER3 SIGHT: Mr. Ford.

Æ