alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
My name is Rick Lane, and I am the CEO of Iggy Ventures. But today, I am speaking in my role 

as a volunteer advising over 200 child safety groups across the country on technology-related 

policy issues. As Dan Caprio can attest, over the past 35 years, I have worked on almost every 

major technology policy issue considered by Congress and the federal agencies either as a 

Congressional staffer, the first Director of eCommerce and Technology at the US Chamber of 

Commerce or during my 15 years as Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for News 

Corporation and 21st Century Fox. 

I want to thank NIST, especially Barbara Cuthill, and the IoT advisory board for allowing me to 

speak today – As someone who has sat on similar federal advisory committees, I know the time 

commitment it takes to take on such a significant task. As is evident from yesterday’s and 

today’s meetings, you have your work cut out for you.

Although it is disappointing that no one from the child safety community was selected to be on 

this important NIST advisory board, it is not surprising since child safety and child privacy are 

entirely absent in the advisory board's charter and not mentioned in any of the background 

information provided to the board. 

Yesterday and today, the advisory board members gave insights of what they thought should be 

covered in the final report—bias of IoT and algorithms, cybersecurity, general privacy issues, 

the growing aging population, socio-economic impact, the right to repair, and even the impact of 

IoT on farming. 

Although these are all essential topics for the report --- and I may have missed it --- I did not 

hear one board member mention the potential impact of the Internet of Things on children. 

Therefore, as the advisory board drafts its report, I hope you add to your meeting agenda time 

to hear from child safety experts who can provide fundamental insights into how IoT may impact 

children.

The protection of children is at the forefront of policymakers around the world. In the US, UK, 

and EU, policies are being developed and implemented to mandate that technology products 

are built with kids’ safety and privacy by design. These requirements differ from how privacy is 

handled at the adult level and thus will directly impact the design of IoT devices and related 

services.

We all have learned that with all the good that technology and its broad adoption has brought to 

society, whether intended or not, technology has been used to harm our kids. As the advisory 

board begins its deliberations, the impact of IoT on children and teens must be one of the 

board’s priority topics.

On behalf of the millions of children who are voiceless in the IoT debate and the hundreds of 

child safety organizations that serve them, I am here to help the board in any way I can to 

ensure that the protection of children is not just an afterthought but the priority it should be as 

we develop the rules of the road for the Internet of Things.

I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.
Prepared and filed by St Ives Financial



Exhibit 10.17

Supplemental Severance Pay Policy

The Company has adopted a severance
    pay policy providing executive officers and key employees with salary continuation
    in the event of a termination. Terminations resulting from cause, resignation,
    retirement, death, and disability are not eligible. Subject to the company’s
    discretion, the policy generally provides for one month’s base pay
    for each full year of service with a minimum amount payable of three months
    and a maximum amount payable of twelve months. This is not a vested benefit
and may be amended or terminated at any time.
10454.

#### Whatley *et al. v.*Riley, ordinary, for use, etc.

Decided October 9, 1919.

Action on bond; from Taylor superior court—Judge Kent presiding. February 15,1919.

*Homer Beeland, G. W. Foy,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Gilbert G. Robinson,*contra.

Luke, J.

The only question raised by the exceptions in this ease is whether the evidence authorizes the verdict. A careful examination of the evidence convinces us that there is some evidence upon which the verdict may be sustained. The trial judge having approved the verdict, this court cannot interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Broyles, *O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
#### Leonard F. Jeter *v.*John A. Willis, etc.

Courts — Appellate Jurisdiction — Final Judgment.

The Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction on appeal, where a demurrer to defendant’s answer was overruled, and on final ¡hearing after the evidence was heard the court refused to permit plaintiff to proceed further, and refused a prayer for judgment, but plaintiff’s petition was not dismissed nor final order or judgment rendered.

APPEAL PROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT.

December 8, 1872.

*'Breckewridge, Buckner, for appellant.*

*BronaugH, Houston & Mulligan, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

A demurrer to appellees’ answer was overruled by the court below and the case was then submitted on final hearing, and after the evidence was heard, the record shows that the court refused to permit appellant to proceed any further, and refused the prayer for judgment. But appellant’s petition is not dismissed, nor has any final order or judgment been rendered in the case, the action is still pending in that court for future adjudication, when a judgment may be rendered or his action may be dismissed.

As, therefore, no final order or judgment has been rendered in the case, this court, under Sec. 15 Civ. Code, has no jurisdiction.

Wherefore the appeal is dismissed.
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.4

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                            THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
                                     BYLAWS
                                       OF
                                 ENTROPIN, INC.
                              DATED MARCH 20, 2000

     The Board of Directors (the "Board") of Entropin, Inc., a Colorado
corporation (the "Corporation"), pursuant to the Colorado Business Corporation
Act (the "Act"), Sections 7-108-103 and 7-110-201 and pursuant to the Amended
and Restated Bylaws of Entropin, Inc., dated March 20, 2000 (the "Bylaws"),
Article X, have approved the amendment of the Bylaws by written consent on
August 18, 2000, a copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A. Pursuant to
such written consent the Bylaws are hereby amended as follows:

     1.   Section 3.3 of the Bylaws is hereby amended by replacing such section
in its entirety with the following:

     SECTION 3.3 NUMBER, TENURE AND QUALIFICATIONS. The number of directors of
     the Corporation shall be not less than three (3) nor more than twelve (12),
     and the number of directors shall be fixed within this range from time to
     time by resolution of the Board of Directors. Each director shall hold
     office for such term as set forth in Entropin's Articles of Incorporation,
     as amended and restated. Directors need not be residents of the State of
     Colorado or shareholders of the Corporation.

     2.   This Amendment was duly adopted by the Board on August 18, 2000.

     On behalf of the Corporation, Higgins D. Bailey, Chairman of the Board of
Directors, by his signature below, does hereby confirm, under the penalties of
perjury, that the foregoing Amendment No.1 to the Amended and Restated Bylaws Of
Entropin, Inc., are a true and correct copy of said document.

                                           ENTROPIN, INC.

                                           By /s/ Higgins D. Bailey
                                              --------------------------
                                              Higgins D. Bailey
                                              Chairman of the Board
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

One 2003 Dodge Ram Automobile * From the 385th District

VIN 3D7MA46683G824545, Court of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. CV48587.

Vs. No. 11-13-00134-CV * December 19, 2013

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
Amendment #1 to 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 Amendment #1 to 2004 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN dated September 14, 2005 
  
 Section 6 of the 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan is deleted in its entirety and
replaced by the following: 
  
 “ 6. Deduction Changes. An employee
may decrease his payroll deduction one or more times during any Plan Period, and may discontinue his payroll deduction during any Plan Period, by filing a new payroll deduction authorization form. However, an employee may not increase his
payroll deduction during a Plan Period. If an employee elects to discontinue his payroll deductions during a Plan Period, but does not elect to withdraw his funds pursuant to Section 8 hereof, funds deducted prior to his election to discontinue
will be applied to the purchase of Common Stock on the Exercise Date (as defined below).”
<PAGE>                                                       Exhibit 21

                MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION
                       SUBSIDIARIES (1)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                State of
      Company                 Incorporation       Business Name
      -------                 -------------       --------------

<S>                             <C>          <C>
McDonnell Douglas Financial     Delaware     McDonnell Douglas Financial
  Services Corporation (2)                     Services Corporation or MDFS

McDonnell Douglas Finance       Delaware     McDonnell Douglas Finance
  Corporation (3)                              Corporation or MDFC

McDonnell Douglas Helicopter    Delaware     McDonnell Douglas Helicopter
  Company (4)                                  Company (MDHC) or McDonnell
                                               Douglas Helicopter Systems (MDHS)



(1)  All other subsidiaries have been omitted from this listing, as considered
     in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, they would not constitute a
     significant subsidiary.

(2)  A consolidated subsidiary meeting the test as a significant subsidiary.

(3)  A consolidated subsidiary of McDonnell Douglas Financial Services
     Corporation meeting the test as a significant subsidiary.

(4)  A consolidated subsidiary of McDonnell Douglas Corporation.

</TABLE>
DHS/NIST - NIST Special Publication 500-XXX - Iris Device Qualification Test (IDQT) 

July 9, 2013 

NIST Gaithersburg, MD, 20899 

Draft Workshop Agenda 

Which When Who What

1. 08:30 All Arrival, registration, cafeteria, seating

2. 08:50 Patrick Grother - NIST Welcome, introductions and logistics

3. 09:00 Arun Vemury - DHS S&T The role of iris qualification in DHS applications

4. 09:15 Patrick Grother - NIST The role of iris qualification in PIV

5. 09:30 Dan Potter - DHS S&T, Scitor Technical presentation of the proposed iris qualification test

6. 10:30 All Coffee (not provided)

7. 11:00 Dan Potter – DHS S&T, Scitor Continued technical presentation of the proposed iris 

qualification test, and disposition of comments received

8. 12:00 All Lunch (not provided)

9. 13:30 Elham Tabassi - NIST Status and relationship to the forthcoming ISO/IEC 29794-6 Iris 

Image Quality standard.

10. 13:50 Various,

Speaking slots remain open

Presentations from interested external parties

11. 15:00 All Open discussion

12. 15:30 All Any other iris recognition topics

13. 16:00 All Departure

IDQT Homepage: http://www.nist.gov/itl/iad/ig/idqt.cfm

IREX Homepage: http://www.nist.gov/itl/iad/ig/irex.cfm

Visitor information: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/index.cfm
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 10.4

$500,000                   PROMISSORY NOTE      Rapid City, South Dakota
                                                               November 11, 1997

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, CONCORDE GAMING CORPORATION ("MAKER"), a Colorado
corporation with its principal place of business at 3290 Lien Street, Rapid
City, South Dakota, promises to pay to the order of BHL CAPITAL CORPORATION
("HOLDER"), a South Dakota corporation with its principal place of business at
3290 Lien Street, Rapid City, South Dakota, on demand after 90 days from the
date of this Promissory Note the sum of Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars
($500,000.00) together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum until paid.
MAKER shall pay HOLDER all accrued interest hereon quarterly.

         The MAKER may prepay this Promissory Note in whole or in part at any
time without penalty. The validity, construction and enforceability of, and the
rights and obligations of the MAKER and HOLDER under this Note shall be governed
by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of South
Dakota.

         The undersigned waives demand, presentment, notice of non-payment,
protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonor. The makers, endorsers,
sureties and guarantors hereof hereby severally waive presentment for payments,
notice of non-payment, protest and notice of protest. Time is of the essence. No
delay or omission on the part of the HOLDER in exercising any right hereunder
shall operate as a waiver of such right or of any other remedy under this
Promissory Note. A waiver on any one occasion shall not be construed as a bar to
or waiver of any such right on a future occasion.

         In the event that this Note is placed in the hands of attorneys for
collection after default, the undersigned agrees to pay in addition to the
principal and interest, all attorney's fees and collection costs (including
attorney's fees and collection costs incurred in realizing upon any collateral
securing this Note) incurred in collecting any amounts due under this Note.

         The undersigned hereby severally agree to pay all costs for any
collections necessary.

                                       CONCORDE GAMING CORPORATION
                                       (MAKER)
                                       By:  Jerry L. Baum
                                       Its: President

                                       Signature: /s/ Jerry L. Baum
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                      Jerry L. Baum
#### City of Darien *v.*Clancy, commissioner, *et al.*

No. 6618.

February 15, 1929.

*Tyson & Tyson,*for plaintiff.

*F. M. Scarlett*and *Clifford Walker,*for defendants.

Hill, J.

1. The act of 1924 (Ga. L. 1924, p. 101), creating a State board of game and fish, and which authorized the board (sec. 8) “to establish and equip an office for the tidewater commissioner in some convenient place in tidewater Georgia,” does not mean that an office temporarily located within such territory shall be permanently established in one fixed place. But such board can, in the exercise of its sound discretion, remove and locate the office of the tidewater commissioner to some convenient place in “tidewater Georgia” that is best suited for its purposes.

2. Where a city located within the territory described in the act of 1924 offered, as an inducement to the State board of game and fish, a certain dock and lights and water free if the oflice of the tidewater commissioner was located in that city, and the board did accept such inducements by locating the office of the commissioner temporarily within such city, and used such offered inducement, this would not create such “vested rights” in behalf of the city, under the written instrument as set out in the petition, as that the board could not subsequently, in the exercise of a sound discretion, remove such office to another city located within the tidewater territory, which was more “convenient” for the purposes of the board.

3. Under the pleadings and the evidence the court did not err in refusing an interlocutory injunction.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices^ concur.*
#### SHARP v. TEAGUE

No. 90P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 215

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1997.
gOCR 30,#

JUD0EKEIIDAII. MAGISIRAIEJU6EUA'W, FELONY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DESIGNATION SHEET FOR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

1. Is this an indictment or information arising out of offenses charged in one or more

previously-filed complaints signed by a magistrate judge? No

1b. Should this indictment or information receive a new case number from the

court? Yes

2. Is this an indictment or information that supersed.es one or more previously-filed

indictments or informations? No

3. Is this a re-filing of a previously dismissed indictment or information? No

4. Is this a case arising out of the failure of the defendant to appear in a criminal

proceeding in this Court? No

5. Is this a transfer of probation supervision from another district to this District?

No

6. what level of offense is this indictment or information? Felony

7. Does this indictment or information involve eight or more defendants? No

8. Does this indictment or information include a conspiracy count? Yes

9. Identifu the type of offense that describes the count, other than any conspiracy

count, with the most severe penalty: other Federal statutes (rrr)

10. List the statute of each of the offenses charged in the indictment or information.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 19b6(a)(BXA)

Title 21, United States Code, Sections 8a1(a)(1) and 846

/s/ Grayson Sang Walker

Grayson Sang Walker

John D. Mitchell

Maureen McCurry

Assistant United States Attorney

FI LE T)

JUN 2 4?fi?0 l/

. 

THOMASG. BRUTON

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
10486.

#### Green *v.*Proctor.

Decided October 20, 1919.

Petition for certiorari; from Upson superior court—Judge Searcy. March 24, 1919.

*J. B. Davis,*for plaintiff in error.

Jenkins, P. J.

The judgment of the ordinary requiring the removal of obstructions from an alleged private way was sufficiently authorized under the evidence; and the judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to sanction the writ of certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., coneur.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                               EXHIBIT 23.4


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

          We consent to the inclusion in this registration statement on Form S-1
(File No. 333-48819, Amendment No. 4) of our report dated February 8, 1997, on
our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Benchmark Communications
Radio Limited Partnership. We also consent to the reference to our firm under
the caption "Experts".


                                            COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Dallas, Texas
May 20, 1998
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 430

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount of 

capital losses that may offset ordinary income. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2003

Mr. SENSENBRENNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the amount of capital losses that may offset ordinary income.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Investment Protection 

5 Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF CAPITAL LOSS DEDUCT7 IBLE AGAINST ORDINARY INCOME. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 1211 of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation 
2

•HR 430 IH 

1 on capital losses of other taxpayers) is amended to read 

2 as follows: 

3 ‘‘(b) OTHER TAXPAYERS.—

4 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a taxpayer 

5 other than a corporation, losses from sales or ex6 changes of capital assets shall be allowed only to the 

7 extent of the gains from such sales or exchanges, 

8 plus (if such losses exceed such gains) the lower of—

9 ‘‘(A) the applicable limitation (twice the 

10 application limitation in the case of a joint re11 turn), or 

12 ‘‘(B) the excess of such losses over such 

13 gains. 

14 ‘‘(2) APPLICABLE LIMITATION.—

15 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of para16 graph (1), the applicable limitation is $10,000. 

17 ‘‘(B) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the 

18 case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar 

19 year after 2003, the $10,000 amount contained 

20 in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an 

21 amount equal to the product of—

22 ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, and 

23 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de24 termined under subsection (f)(3) for the 

25 calendar year in which the taxable year be-
3

•HR 430 IH 

1 gins, determined by substituting ‘calendar 

2 year 2002’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in sub3 paragraph (B) thereof. 

4 If any amount after adjustment under the pre5 ceding sentence is not a multiple of $50, such 

6 amount shall be rounded to the next lowest 

7 multiple of $50.’’

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

10 December 31, 2002.

Æ
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to MORGANSTANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC.
TRUST 2004-SD2, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-
SD2 (the "Securitizations").  Washington Mutual Bank, FA (the
"Servicer") services mortgage loans in connection with the
Securitizations (the "Mortgage Loans") pursuant to the terms of
that certain Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2004 between
Washington Mutual Bank, FA (the "Servicer") and Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company (the "Trustee") and Morgan Stanley ABS Capital
I Inc. (the "Depositor") (as from time to time amended or replaced
by a reconstituted servicing or other successor servicing agreement,
the "Servicing Agreement").

I, Conrad Vasquez, an authorized officer of the Servicer, certify
for the benefit of the Master Servicer and the Trustee with respect to
the calendar year immediately preceding the date of this Officer's
Certificate (the "Relevant Year"), as follows:

1.  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant
Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under
My supervision;

2.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in
all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.


DATED as of March 15, 2005


/s/  Conrad Vasquez
Name:  Conrad Vasquez
Title:  Senior Vice President