alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Department of Com

National Institute of Standards and Technolo

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For: 

Louisiana 

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully 

completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, anddemonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate. 

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope 

Mass Echelon III Volume Transfer, II 25 kg to 1 mg 5 gal 2500 lb to 250 lb 50 lb to 0.001 lb 8 oz to 0.03125 oz 

___________Douglas A. ONIST Office Effective Date

(Rev.: February 2020)
CISA | CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY 

CISA PRESENTATION FOR NIST SECURE 

SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP FOR 

GENERATIVE AI 

• Jonathan (Jono) Spring 

• Martin Stanley 

 

 

Jonathan Spring 

January 17, 2024 
 

 

 

CISA Secure AI 

• CISA recently published an agency AI Roadmap with five Lines of Effort: 

• LINE OF EFFORT 1: Responsibly use AI to support our mission 

• LINE OF EFFORT 2: Assure AI systems 

• LINE OF EFFORT 3: Protect critical infrastructure from malicious use of AI 

• LINE OF EFFORT 4: Collaborate with and communicate on key AI efforts with the 

interagency, international partners and the public 

• LINE OF EFFORT 5: Expand AI expertise in our workforce 

• Updates to the SSDF are supportive of these efforts as well as specific initiatives 

related to secure software 

Jonathan Spring 

January 17, 2024 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generative AI is Software – Recent CISA 

Efforts 

• Under EO 14028 CISA recently completed the comment period (12/18/23) on 

updates to the self-attestation on SSDF which applies for entities providing services 

to the federal government. 

• Request for Comment on Secure Software Development Attestation 

Common Form | CISA 

• Guidance recently issued in coordination with the UK, CISA, and 21 other partner 

agencies provides a baseline for a common approach. 

• CISA and UK NCSC Unveil Joint Guidelines for Secure AI System 

Development | CISA 

Jonathan Spring 

January 17, 2024 
 

 

 

 

Secure Software Development Attestation 

Common Form Update 

• EO 14028 - Enhancing the Security of the Software Supply Chain through 

Secure Software Development Practices 

• Based on NIST SSDF (SP) 800-218v1.1 

• Updates to the SSDF for GenAI should be incorporated into the Common 

Form Update 

Jonathan Spring 

January 17, 2024 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CISA and Partner Nation Guidelines for 

Secure AI Development 

• Co-sealed by 23 domestic and international cybersecurity organizations, this 

publication marks a significant step in addressing the intersection of artificial 

intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and critical infrastructure. 

• https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/guidelines-secure-ai-system-development 

• Emphasis on supporting Secure by Design Principles. 

• With the October 2023 Secure by Design document, CISA and 17 partner organizations 

explicitly put AI in the scope of Secure by Design 

• Secure by Design | CISA 

Jonathan Spring 

January 17, 2024 
Jonathan Spring

January 17, 2024 6
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Entropin, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
      capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




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




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


Date: August
                8, 2006
              By:
              /s/ *David
                L. Norris*Name:
              David
                L.
                NorrisTitle:
              Chief
                  Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Entropin, Inc. and will be retained by
      Entropin, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.




EXHIBIT
            32.2
#### Talmadge, commissioner, *v.*McDonald; *et vice versa.*

Nos. 6763, 6769.

January 23, 1929.

See *Talmadge v.*Cordell, ante.

Beck, P. J.

The questions presented for decision in these cases are the same as those in the case of *Talmadge*v. *Cordell,*ante.

*Judgment affirmed on the main MU of exceptions, and reversed on the eross-Mll.*

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE RELATED CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS OF  OPERATIONS  AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1999 OF STRATFORD  AMERICAN  CORPORATION  AND ITS  SUBSIDIARIES  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,194,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,202,000
<PP&E>                                         612,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  76,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,804,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,080,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,804,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               320,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (242,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (242,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (13,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (255,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
#### Deitsch, Appellant, *v.*Deitsch, Appellee.

(No. 4300

— Decided September 28, 1949.)

*375
      *Messrs. Herbert & Dornbey,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Crabbe, Garete S Hillman,*for appellee.

Wiseman, J.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, of Franklin County.

Where, in an action for divorce and alimony, the court on application allows the wife alimony *pendente lite*under the provisions of Section 11994, General Code, and in the same entry orders the wife to surrender the possession of an automobile to a third party, such order is made without authority and constitutes reversible error. In such a proceeding the court is controlled by statute and is not authorized to exercise general equity powers. *Durham*v. *Durham,*104 Ohio St., 7, 9, 135 N. E., 280; *Marleau*v. *Marleau,*95 Ohio St., 162, 115 N. E., 1009. The judgment is reversed.

*Judgment reversed.*

Miller, P. J., and Hornbeck, J., concur.
exv10w1



 





EXHIBIT 10.1




DIRECTOR COMPENSATION



On November 11, 2005, Inter-Tel, Incorporated revised its director compensation. Inter-Tel’s
complete director compensation schedule is set forth below as so revised:




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Description	 	Prior to 10-4-05	 	After 10-4-05
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Each regularly scheduled Board of Directors meeting attended

	 	$	1,500	 	 	$	2,000	 
	Quarterly stipend for non-chairman committee members

	 	 	6,000	 	 	 	6,000	 
	Quarterly stipend for compensation committee chairman

	 	 	6,500	 	 	 	6,500	 
	Quarterly stipend for governance and nominating committee
chairman

	 	 	6,500	 	 	 	6,500	 
	Quarterly stipend for non-employee chairman of the board of
directors

	 	 	10,500	 	 	 	10,500	 
	Quarterly stipend for audit committee chairman

	 	 	10,500	 	 	 	10,500	 
	Each compensation committee meeting attended

	 	 	1,500	 	 	 	1,500	 
	Each governance and nominating committee meeting attended

	 	 	1,500	 	 	 	1,500	 
	Each audit committee meeting attended

	 	 	2,000	 	 	 	2,000	 
	Each meeting of a special committee of the Board or a
subcommittee thereof

	 	 	1,500	 	 	 	2,000	 
	Each special meeting of the Board or committee of the
Board, including unanimous written consents in lieu of
board meetings

	 	 	1,500	 	 	 	2,000	 
	Expenses of attending Board and Committee meetings

	 	As incurred
	 	As incurred

	The Company also allows each director to elect to
participate in the health benefit plans each year
Directors are offered participation in the same plans
offered to employees, subject to payment by each electing
director at employee participant rates, plus all applicable
co-pays and/or deductibles

	 	Participation

offered in

Company plans
	 	Participation

offered in

Company plans

	Director continuing education expenses

	 	50% of eligible

tuition plus

expenses
	 	50% of eligible

tuition plus

expenses

	Annual stock option grants to purchase shares of Common
Stock, pursuant to the Company’s Director Stock Option Plan
(as amended), at the market price five (5) business days
after the date of the annual Board meeting

	 	 	7,500	 	 	 	7,500	 







4
#### Jake Harris *v.*Patsy Lawson.

Vendor and Purchaser — Rescission of Contract of Sale Restoring Possession.

¡Where one enters land under a contract of purchase, he is -hound to restore possession to the vendor upon rescission of the contract of sale, before he will be allowed to dispute the title -of the vendor.

Assignments — Warranty of Title.

'The assignment of a title bond does not carry with it a warranty of title.

*439Vendor and Purchaser — Fraud of Purchaser.

Where one in the purchase of land practices a fraud on his ignorant and illiterate vendor he will not he permitted to take advantage of -the fraud.

APPEAL PROM ESTILL CIROUIT COURT.

February 7, 1873.

*Burnam, for appellant.*

*Lilly, for appellee.*

OpinioN by

Judge Lindsay :

It was not necessary for the purposes of this suit that Patsy Lawson should make out a perfect title to the land in controversy.

Harris entered under her, and when the contract of sale was rescinded he was bound to restore the possession. Until he does this he holds under her title, and cannot be allowed to dispute it.

The assignment to him' of the title bond of Mason does not relieve him. from this allegiance to the title under which he entered, even though the boundaries set out in said bond cover that of this land. The assignment of a title bond carries with it no warranty of title, but if it did, the circumstances of this case precludes Harris from taking advantage of it. Whilst holding the land in contest, as a purchaser from Patsy Lawson, he made the contract as her agent with the agent of Mason. If he bought her land then in his possession, and claimed by him, he practiced a fraud on his ignorant and illiterate principal, and he will not now in a contract with her be permitted to take advantage of this fraud.

Although it does not appear how the plat of the survey made by Benton got into the case, it is marked filed by the clerk, and was treated as part of the record of the court when the judgment was rendered.

But independent of anything set out in this paper there is ample evidence to sustain the judgment. It is therefore *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000837290
<NAME> SHERRI NITTA
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,906
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,248
<PP&E>                                         232,415
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,638
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,341
<BONDS>                                         65,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,948
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,503
<SALES>                                         15,735
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,828
<CGS>                                           11,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,093
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,858
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,086
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,772
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,772
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15


</TABLE>
10697.

#### Eichholz *v.*LaRoche.

Decided October 14, 1919.

Certiorari; from Chatham superior court—Judge Meldrim. May 17, 1919.

*Osborne, Laivrence & Abrahams,*for plaintiff in error.

*George S. Cargill, W. R. Hewlett,*contra.

Ltjke, J.

The judgment, although authorized, was not demanded by the evidence. Therefore the sustaining of the certiorari, upon the assignment of error that the judgment was without evidence to support it, will not be disturbed, for the reason that the judgment sustaining the certiorari for the first time was in the nature of a first grant of a new trial. See *Parker*v. *Bridges,*22 *Ga. App.*58 (95 S. E. 321), and cases there cited.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
#### Sarah L. Wren v. Thomas McLaren and George Wren.

*Affidavit of non-execution of joint note.*

Where several persons are sued jointly as makers of a promissory note an affidavit by one of them that he has neither executed the note nor authorized any one to execute it for him is sufficient to put the execution and validity of the note at issue, so far as he is concerned, even though his co-defendants do not join in the affidavit.

Error to Shiawassee.

Submitted Apr. 13.

Decided Apr. 19.

Assumpsit. Defendant McLaren brings error.

Reversed.

*A. B. McBride*for appellant.

*Joseph M. McGrath*and *Hugh*McCurdy, for appellee,

cited *Mills v. Bunce*29 Mich. 364, and *Freeman v. Ellison*37 Mich. 459.

Campbell, J.

Mrs. Wren sued McLaren and George Wren on a promissory note dated at Corunna May 2, 1881, for $100, with interest at 8 per cent., payable in 90 days, .and purporting to be signed “ *McLaren <& Wren.”*George Wren was defaulted. McLaren pleaded the general issue, .and annexed to his plea an affidavit denying not only the •execution of the note by himself, but also its execution by any one having authority to bind him or to bind defendants jointly..

On the trial the circuit judge held that this affidavit was •not sufficient without an affidavit from Wren also, to allow .any defense to be introduced against the existence of the note as executed by defendants, and ordered judgment for plaintiff.

This affidavit was as broad as it could very well be made, .and distinctly denied any such execution by any one as would bind McLaren. To require one defendant to lose his ■defense unless his co-defendant will join him in an affidavit •of non-execution would subject him to such danger of fraud *198and collusion as would render such a rule as contained such a requirement unjust and arbitrary in the extreme. No-such meaning can be applied to the rule which requires a plea to be supported by affidavit; and such dangerous practice can receive no sanction. The regulation was intended to prevent sham defenses or surprises, and not to entrap men into responsibilities they never incurred. *McCormick v. Bay City*23 Mich. 457; *Anderson v. Walter*34 Mich. 114; *Freeman v. Ellison*37 Mich. 459.

The affidavit was sufficient to put the execution and validity of the note in issue, and the court erred in holding-otherwise.

The judgment must be reversed with costs and a new trial' granted.

The other Justices concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Penions Assets Partnership 1988-A, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of
operations  contained  in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         72,743
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  13,635
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               86,378
<PP&E>                                         4,177,862
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,749,616)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 514,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,841
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     511,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   514,624
<SALES>                                        86,642
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               87,070
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  37,078<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                32,320
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            32,320
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   32,320
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
** **

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Joshua H. Levine,President and Chief Executive Officer of Mentor Corporation (the "Company"), dohereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofmy knowledge:

(1)       the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year endedMarch 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; asamended; and

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

 Dated: June 13, 2005

/s/JOSHUA H. LEVINEJoshua H. LevinePresident and Chief Executive Officer

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to Mentor Corporation and will be retained by MentorCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.