alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 14,906.

#### Dukes *v.*Cole et al.

*Pleading.*— Sufficiency *of Answer.*— Reply.—The Supreme Court will not look beyond the allegations of an answer, to the reply, for the purpose of determining its sufficiency.

*Same.*— Exhibits.— *When Pari of Pleading.*— Exhibits are to be considered as a part of a pleading only in cases where they are copies of the instrument upon which the pleading is founded.

*138
      *Practice.*— Assignment *of Error.*— Failure *to Make Specific Objection.*— Where it is assigned as error that *the*court erred in rendering judgment upon a demurrer, but no specific objection was made thereto, and no exception was taken, the judgment will not be disturbed.

From the Miami Circuit Court.

*J. M. Brown, N. N. Antrim*and *J. L. Farrar,*for appellant.

*R. P. Effinger, C. A. Cole*and *8. T. McConnell,*for appellees.

Elliott, J. —

The appellant alleges in his complaint that by a contract in writing the appellees sold to him a large number of growing trees; that he cut down the trees and sawed them into logs and cordwood; that, after this was done by him, the appellees seized the logs and cordwood and converted them to their own use.

The appellant has not made good any point on the answers pleading a former recovery, for no specific defects are designated. We can not say that the answers are bad, for, while they are not well drawn, they are sufficient in substance to require us to uphold the judgment of the trial court. In discussing the sufficiency of the answers counsel refer us to exhibits filed with the reply, but we can not look beyond the allegations of the answers for the purpose of determining their sufficiency. If, however, it were true that we could look beyond the answers, to the reply, we could not regard the exhibits, for they are not parts o,f the pleading. It has been often decided that exhibits are only to be considered as a part of a pleading in cases where they are copies of the instrument upon which the pleading is founded.

It is specified in the assignment of errors that the court erred *“*in rendering judgment for the defendants on the demurrer to the second paragraph of the reply.” Waiving a decision of the question whether this is a proper specification of error, we hold against the appellant, for the reason that there was no specific objection to the judgment, nor was there *139any exception. If the specification had been upon the ruling on the demurrer to the reply a very different question •would be presented.

Filed Sept. 24, 1891.

Judgment affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES v. FRAZIER.

Civ. No. 1951.

United States District Court W. D. Kentucky, at Louisville.

Aug. 12, 1951.

Paul Marshall, Sol. W. Wyman, Enforcement Attys., Cleveland Ohio, for plaintiff.

Hardy & Logan and Ralph H. Logan, Louisville, Ky., for defendant.

*493SHELBOURNE, Chief Judge.

This suit was filed August 2, 1950, by the Office of Housing Expediter, in the name of the United States against Lizzie Frazier, to recover $633.05 for the benefit of Saint Carpenter, on account of overcharges in the rent collected by the defendant Lizzie Frazier for a housing accommodation described in the evidence as 616 E. Madison Street, Louisville, Kentucky, between the dates of November 12, 1949 and June 3, 1950.

The case was tried to the Court without a jury.

From the evidence introduced the Court makes the following

Findings of Fact.

1'. Saint Carpenter, as tenant of defendant Lizzie Frazier, occupied the housing accommodation known as 616 E. Madison Street, Louisville, Kentucky, from March 12, 1949 to June 3, 1950, during all of which time, he paid the defendant Lizzie Frazier as rental for said premises the sum of $12'per week.

2. During the period beginning March 12, 1949, and ending May 13, 1950, the maximum legal rent on said housing accommodation was $7:35 per month. During the period from May 13, 1950 to June 3, 1950, the maximum legal rent was $13 per month.

3. During the period from March 12, 1949 to May 13, 1950 the defendant received $628.90 in excess of the maximum legal rent entitled to be charged by her as rental for said housing accommodation. During the period from May 13, 1950 to June 3, 1950) she received a total of $6.75 more than the maximum legal rent.

The total overcharge or amount collected by her as rental on said housing accommodation in excess of the maximum legal rent which she was authorized to charge and receive amounts to $635.65.

4. The amount of the overcharge collected by the defendant within twelve months next prior to August 2, 1950 is the sum of $409.40.

Conclusions of Law.

I. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties under the provisions of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, Sections 205 and 206(b), 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §§ 1895, 1896(b).

II. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant Lizzie Frazier, for the use and benefit of Saint Carpenter, the sum of $635.65.

III. Plaintiff is entitled to recover $818.80, as the statutory overcharge representing an amount equal to twice the amount of the overcharges received by the defendant during eleven months next preceding the filing of the complaint in this action.

Judgment will be tendered by Counsel for the plaintiff in conformity with this memorandum upon notice to defendant.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 168

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 408

[Report No. 108–292] 

To provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2003

Mr. CAMP (for himself and Mr. STUPAK) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Resources 

OCTOBER 2, 2003 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on January 28, 2003] 

A BILL

To provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore.

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

•HR 408 RH 

1 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NA2 TIONAL LAKESHORE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—When title to the land described in 

4 subsection (b) has vested in the United States in fee simple, 

5 the boundary of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 

6 is revised to include such land in that park. 

7 (b) LAND DESCRIBED.—The land referred to in sub8 section (a) consists of approximately 104.45 acres of unim9 proved lands generally depicted on National Park Service 

10 map number 634/80078, entitled ‘‘Bayberry Mills, Inc. 

11 Crystal River, MI Proposed Expansion Unit to Sleeping 

12 Bear Dunes National Lakeshore’’. The Secretary of the Inte13 rior shall keep such map on file and available for public 

14 inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park 

15 Service. 

16 (c) PURCHASE OF LANDS AUTHORIZED.—The Sec17 retary of the Interior may acquire the land described in 

18 subsection (b), only by purchase from a willing seller. 

19 (d) LIMITATION ON ACQUISITION BY EXCHANGE OR

20 CONVEYANCE.—The Secretary of the Interior may not ac21 quire any of the land described in subsection (b) through 

22 any exchange or conveyance of lands that are within the 

23 boundary of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 

24 as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Union Calendar No. 168

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 408

[Report No. 108–292] 

A BILL

To provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore. 

OCTOBER 2, 2003

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 

and ordered to be printed
EXHIBIT 14

Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 32-5 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:330
Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 32-5 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:331
Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 32-5 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:332
#### CROCKETT *v.*TRIPP *et al.*

No. 6728.

November 15, 1928.

*324
      *0. 0. Crockett,*for plaintiff in error. *G. H.*Williams, contra.

*325Gilbert, J.

1. “When . . property may be in litigation, and the rights of either or both parties can not otherwise be fully protected, . . a receiver of the same may be appointed (on a proper case made).” Civil Code (1910), § 5475. “Courts of equity shall have authority to appoint receivers to take possession of and protect trust or joint property and funds, whenever the danger of destruction and loss shall require such interference.” § 5476. “A court of equity may appoint a receiver to take possession of, and hold subject to the direction of the court, any assets charged with the payment of debts, where there is manifest danger of loss, or destruction, or material injury to those interested.” § 5479; *Orton*v. *Madden,*75 *Ga.*83 (3).

2. The court was authorized to find that the real property was jointly owned by plaintiffs; that it was heavily incumbered; that none of them were competent to manage it, or to pay off the incumbrances so as to preserve their equity; that tax executions had issued and levies thereof had been threatened; that foreclosure was imminent; that defendant Crockett had by contract with such owners become agent and had exclusive control, coupled with stipulated obligations looking to preservation; that his duties were in the nature of a trusteeship; that he had failed to pay off matured interest charges, debts, and liens; and that he had indicated in open court, on the interlocutory hearing, his refusal to further carry out his obligations under the aforesaid contract. Under the pleadings and the evidence, the discretion of the trial judge in appointing a receiver and granting an interlocutory injunction will not be interfered with at the instance of plaintiff in error. This is especially true when the court provided in the judgment a full recognition of the indebtedness to defendant Crockett, and provided for its extinguishment first in order from the funds received. See the judgment quoted in the statement of facts. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the .Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     7
<LEGEND>
The financial statements contained in the Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended September 30, 1997 for Aetna Life
Insurance and Annuity Company
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000837010
<NAME>                        Aetna Life Insurance and Annuity Company
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            13,257
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                         222
<MORTGAGE>                                          13
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  14,058
<CASH>                                             614
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   9
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           1,621
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,522
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                  3,758
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  1
<POLICY-OTHER>                                      27
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           11,075
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,522
<PREMIUMS>                                         200
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                805
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  18
<OTHER-INCOME>                                      29
<BENEFITS>                                         853
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    209
<INCOME-TAX>                                        64
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                145
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       145
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Everest
Futures Fund, L.P. for the second quarter of 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000837919
<NAME> EVEREST FUTURES FUND L P

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      56,979,995
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  248,392
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            57,228,387
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,228,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,296,965
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  54,931,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,228,387
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,468,800
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  567,067
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,901,733
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,901,733
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,901,733
<EPS-BASIC>                                     281.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   281.62


</TABLE>
Hardware Heterogeneity at NCATS

more hardware, more problems

December 7, 2023

Nick Schaub, Ph.D.

Senior Data Scientist1

Associate Director of Deep Learning2

1Information Technology Resources Branch, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health

2Axle Research and Technology, 6116 Executive Blvd, Rockville, MD 20850
Diverse Users

Programmers

• SDKs and libraries

Technical

• Command line tools & terminal

• Direct edit YAML/JSON

Advanced Domain Experts

• Complex GUIs

• Configure/optimize hyperparameters

• Some "Macro" scripting

Domain Experts

• Simple GUIs

• Single button if possible!
Diverse Needs

Language Support

• Python, Java, R, C/C++, and Rust

Diverse Libraries 

• Traditional, Tensorflow, Pytorch, Jax, etc.

• Diverse driver requirements i.e. CUDA 

Diverse Hardware

• CPU - x86 and ARM

• AVX/AVX2

• GPU - Nvidia

• Historical code written across multiple 

Nvidia compute capabilities

• RAM - 8GB → ∞
Scalable Algorithm Development

Things we need to do:

1. Process data larger than memory

2. Distributed computation

Things we get from the process:

1. More abstraction

2. Run on consumer grade hardware

Things we need to know:

● Number and type of CPUs (x86/ARM)

● RAM

● Storage (NAS, cloud, etc)

● GPU type and minimum driver/toolkit version
Case Study: FTL Label Tool

Connected component labeling is 

used to find discrete regions in a 

binary image

Developed a compressed encoding 

(run length encoding)

For increased speed, we used SIMD 

(AVX2)

“Just put it in Docker and it will work”

What about ARM? (Apple Silicon)
Distributed Workflows on Argo

Design philosophy: Highly 

specialized tools to maximize 

composability

What resources are available to me 

on the node?

Can we take advantage of tool 

information to reduce costs? (run 

low resource jobs on cost efficient 

nodes)
GPUs

What kind of GPU/toolkits are required?

Basic information is required

1. Compute score (nvidia)

2. Minimum driver version

3. Cuda toolkit version

4. Vulkan/opencl?

Still need more information:

1. Many unmodified LLMs require a minimum of 16GB of GPU ram

2. Many large models require multiple GPUs

3. Some tools can run on CPU if a GPU is not present
Questions?
Exhibit 32

                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

         In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Mediscience
Technology Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
February 28, 2007 (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers of the
Company, hereby certify that to such officer's knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Date:  June  13, 2007
                                       By:      /s/ Peter Katevatis
                                           -------------------------------------
                                                Peter Katevatis
                                                Chief Executive Officer

Date:  June  13, 2007
                                       By:      /s/ Frank D. Benick
                                           -------------------------------------
                                                Frank D. Benick
                                                Chief Financial Officer

         The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.
10701.

#### WEAVER *v.*THE STATE.

The rule requiring corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice does not apply to misdemeanor eases.

Decided October 14, 1919.

Accusation of larceny; from city court of Millen—Judge Dekle. June 2, 1919.

*A. S. Anderson, Earl V. Norman,*for plaintiff in error.

Broyles, C. J.

The only point argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error is that the defendant was illegally convicted because the only testimony connecting him with the offense charged was that of uncorroborated accomplices. The rule of law that the defendant in a criminal case can not legally be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice (Penal Code, § 1017) does not apply to misdemeanor cases.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Lulce and Bloodworih, JJ., concur.*
#### Thomas Foly *v.*H. B. Smith.

Appeal — Final Orders.

An order to pay money into court, or appear and show cause to the contrary, and an order adjudging .the response to the rule insufficient and awarding an attachment for contempt, are not final orders ■from which an appeal will lie.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

December 19, 1872.

*D. M. Rodman, for appellmt.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

The order of the 7th of October, 1870, that Foly pay $420, with interest from December 19, 1867, into court or “appear and show cause to the contrary,” and the subsequent order adjudging his response to that rule to be insufficient and awarding an attachment against him for contempt, are merely incidental to the judgment in the case of *H. B. 'Smith v.*Arnold, *etc.,*which has just been reversed on the appeal of Emma Arnold and others, and they therefore became inoperative and subject to be set aside with that judgment.

But they are not final orders from which a separate appeal will lie to this court.

This appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court.

-, *for appellee.*
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 26, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 26, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15I0124. SIDHI INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. VICKI LEE THRIFT.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 13V322