alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Genome Editing Standards Workshop

NIST Hosted, ASGCT partnered

May 2, 2016 Microsoft Corporation Chevy Chase, Maryland

Agenda

8:30 - 9:00 Check-in & Continental Breakfast

9:00 - 9:15 Welcome / Introduction to the day

Samantha Maragh (NIST)

9:15 - 9:45 Beyond Reproducibility in Biomedical Measurements

Anne Plant (NIST)

9:45 - 10:30 Keynote address: Defining and Improving the Specificities of Genome-Editing Nucleases

J. Keith Joung (Massachusetts General Hospital / Harvard Medical School)

10:30 - 10:45 Break

10:45 - 11:15 Regulatory Perspective

Lilia Bi (FDA) 

11:15 - 11:30 Perspective from industry on measurement needs.

TBD

11:30 - 12:15 Panel Discussion: Measurement Assurance Needs for Genome Editing

Panelists: Lilia Bi (FDA), Vic Myer (Editas), Mark Behlke (IDT), Martin Aryee (Harvard), J. 

Keith Joung (Mass. General Hospital/Harvard), Reynald Lescarbeau (Intellia)

12:15 - 12:30 Charge for Breakout Sessions: Identifying Barriers, Gaps & Solutions

Samantha Maragh (NIST)

12:30 - 12:45 Lunch pick-up (provided)

Sponsors
12:45 - 1:45 Breakout Sessions Round 1 - during working lunch

1) Needs for confidence in off-target measurements

2) Needs for confidence in genome editing pipeline assessment and comparability

3) Data/Informatics Standards Considerations

1:45 - 2:00 Breakout session switch

2:00 - 3:00 Breakout Sessions Round 2

1) Needs for confidence in off-target measurements

2) Needs for confidence in genome editing pipeline assessment and comparability

3) Data/Informatics Standards Considerations

3:00 - 3:15 Break

Moderator Samantha Maragh (NIST)

3:15 - 4:00 Reports from breakout sessions (~15 mins each)

4:00 - 4:45 Open Discussion: Addressing identified measurement/standards barriers, gaps and 

solutions

4:45 - 5:00 Follow up actions / future meetings discussed

5:00 - 6:00 Networking Reception
EXHIBIT 4.30


 


Non-executive director
appointment letter – Mr Michael A Chaney


 


The Non-executive director appointment letter of Mr Michael A Chaney is
incorporated by reference to National Australia Bank Limited’s Annual Report on
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Commission on January 20, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   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 Genus, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, William W.R. Elder,
Chief Executive 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:

(1) the Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                              By:
                              ---
                              William W.R. Elder
                              Chief Executive Officer
                              Date: August 6, 2004



                                       51
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James W. Bernau, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley Vineyards
Inc.

Date: May 13, 2005
By:	 /s/ James W. Bernau
Name: James W. Bernau
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                         EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONS
                      (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Month Period    Six Month Period
                                                        Ended June 30,      Ended June 30,
                                                     ------------------   -----------------
                                                       1997       1996      1997      1996
                                                     --------   -------   -------   -------
<S>                                                   <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>    
EARNINGS PER COMMON AND DILUTIVE
  COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE:
  Net Income                                          $ 5,008   $ 2,214   $10,701   $ 5,230
                                                      =======   =======   =======   =======
  Shares:
  Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding                               20,831    17,841    20,896    17,821
  Weighted average number of additional shares
      issuable for common stock equivalents(a)          1,222       841     1,309       808
                                                      -------   -------   -------   -------
         Adjusted common shares                        22,053    18,682    22,205    18,629
                                                      =======   =======   =======   =======

EARNINGS PER SHARE - PRIMARY                          $  0.23   $  0.12   $  0.48   $  0.28
                                                      =======   =======   =======   =======

EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE ASSUMING
  FULL DILUTION:
  Net Income                                          $ 5,008   $ 2,214   $10,701   $ 5,230
                                                      =======   =======   =======   =======
  Shares:
  Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding                               20,831    17,841    20,896    17,821
  Weighted average number of additional shares
      issuable for all dilutive common stock
      equivalents(a)                                    1,353       870     1,375       823
                                                      -------   -------   -------   -------
         Shares as adjusted for all dilutants          22,184    18,711    22,271    18,644
                                                      =======   =======   =======   =======

EARNINGS PER SHARE - FULLY DILUTED                    $  0.23   $  0.12   $  0.48   $  0.28
                                                      =======   =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>

(a)      Shares issuable were derived using the "Treasury Stock Method" for all
         dilutive common stock equivalents.
Exhibit (24)

		     MERCANTILE BANKSHARES CORPORATION
			     POWER OF ATTORNEY


	KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned Directors of 
MERCANTILE BANKSHARES CORPORATION, a Maryland Corporation, hereby 
constitute and appoint H. FURLONG BALDWIN and EDWARD K. DUNN, JR., or 
either of them acting alone, the true and lawful agents and attorneys in 
fact of the undersigned in each case with full power and authority in 
either of said agents and attorneys in fact, to sign for the undersigned 
and in their respective names as Directors of the Corporation the Annual 
Report of the Corporation to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the 
year 1996, on Form 
10-K, filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any 
amendment or amendments to such Form 10-K hereby ratifying and confirming 
all acts taken by such agents and attorneys in fact, or either of them, as 
herein authorized.

Date:           March 11, 1997




/s/ Freeman A. Hrabowski, III   Director    /s/ James A. Block        Director
Freeman A. Hrabowski, III                   James A. Block

/s/ Christian H. Poindexter     Director    /s/ William C. Richardson Director
Christian H. Poindexter                     William C. Richardson

/s/ Robert A. Kinsley           Director                              Director
Robert A. Kinsley 
                                               
/s/ Thomas M. Bancroft, Jr.     Director                              Director
Thomas M. Bancroft, Jr.

/s/ Bishop L. Robinson          Director                              Director
Bishop L. Robinson      

/s/ Donald J. Shepard           Director                              Director
Donald J. Shepard

/s/ Robert D. Kunisch           Director                              Director
Robert D. Kunisch

/s/ William R. Brody            Director                              Director
William R. Brody

/s/ Calman J. Zamoiski, Jr.     Director                              Director
Calman J. Zamoiski, Jr.

/s/ B. Larry Jenkins            Director                              Director
B. Larry Jenkins
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00119

- CV

SENRICK WILKERSON

, Appellant

v.

HUNTSVILLE INSTITUTI ONAL PAROLE OFFICE

, Appellee

From the 12th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1527660

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Senrick Wilkerson appeals the trial court’s judgment of dismissal rendered against

him on February 29, 2016. By letter dated June 20, 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified

Wilkerson that the appeal was subject to dismissal because the original filing fee of

$205.00 had not been paid and warned Wilkerson that the Court would dismiss the

appeal unless, within 10 days from the date of the letter, Wilkerson paid the filing fee orWilkerson v. Huntsville Institutional Parole Office Page 2

obtained indigent status for the purposes of appeal. Ten days have passed, and

Wilkerson has not responded.

This appeal is dismissed. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(c).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed July 20, 2016

[CV06]
#### Crosby *et al. v.*Thomas *et al.*

Beck, P. J.

James Crosby and others brought a petition against Ora Thomas, John Thomas, and Amanda Crosby, seeking for cancellation of a deed, partition of land, and injunction to restrain Ora Thomas and John Thomas from working the turpentine timber on any portion of the land described in the petition. The jury returned a verdict “for the defendant.” The plaintiffs made a motion for a new trial as against Ora Thomas and John Thomas. Both of those two defendants were served with the suit. The motion for a new trial was overruled. The plaintiffs filed their bill of exceptions, reciting the trial of the case of "James Crosby et al. vs. Ora Thomas et al.” There is no other mention of a defendant in the bill of exceptions. Service of the bill of exceptions was acknowledged by Wade H. Watson, “attorney for Ora Thomas et al.” There is nothing in the record to show that the attor*549ney thus acknowledging service was the attorney for John Thomas. *Held:*

No. 6675.

December 15, 1928.

*II. J. Lawrence,*for plaintiffs. *Wade II. Walson,*for defendants.

1. The acknowledgment of service did not evidence service upon John Thomas, it not appearing from the record that the attorney who signed the acknowledgment represented John Thomas in the litigation; and John Thomas is not named in the bill of exceptions. *Carter*v. *American Ginger Ale &c. Co.,*125 *Ga.*819 (54 S. E. 755); *Mutual Building*&c. *Co.*v. *Dickinson,*112 *Ga.*469 (37 S. E. 713).

2. The last-named defendant was a necessary party to the bill of exceptions, as he is interested in sustaining the verdict and judgment of the court.

3. It follows that the motion to dismiss the writ of error must be sustained. *Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the*Justices *concur.*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 30, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30253

Summary Calendar

 

CARINE LILIANE UMUZAYIRE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HIPOLITO ACOSTA, Interim District Director,

Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services,

Houston, Texas,

Defendant-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(02-CV-1338-R)

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Carine Liliane Umuzayire appeals from the

district court’s dismissal of her declaratory-judgment action for

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Umuzayire argues that the

district court had jurisdiction to review her asylum application.

Because Umuzayire is required to exhaust her administrative

remedies by renewing her request for asylum in the context of
removal proceedings, the district court did not have jurisdiction

over the present case. See Kashani v. Nelson, 793 F.2d 818, 826-27

(7th Cir. 1986). As the district court lacked jurisdiction, we too

lack jurisdiction and therefore must dismiss Umuzayire’s appeal.

AFFIRMED DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-02-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                           1,791
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,076
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,122
<INVENTORY>                                     24,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,075
<PP&E>                                          11,605
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,399
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,283
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,241
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,994
<SALES>                                         99,155
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,155
<CGS>                                           71,819
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,819
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,126
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,951)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,007)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,944)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,944)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Steven D. Rudnik, the Chief Executive Officer of Magnitude Information
Systems, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Magnitude Information
Systems, Inc. (the "Company");

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and we have:

      (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      (c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and to the audit committee of
Company's board of directors:

      (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls; and

6. The Company's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated: May 12, 2004                     By:   /s/ Steven D. Rudnik
                                            ------------------------------------
                                              Steven D. Rudnik
                                              Chief Executive Officer
Video Challenge Problem 

Multiple Biometric Grand Challenge 

Preliminary Results of Version 2 

04 December 2009 
Goals and Motivations 

• Operational environment 

– Recognition from video. 

– Unconstrained illumination. 

– Unconstrained movement / pose. 
Meet the Data 

University of Notre Dame 

• Two different mediums of video. 

– High definition video (1440 x 1080) 

– Standard definition video (720 x 480) 
Meet the Data 

University of Texas at Dallas 
Both Data Sets Contain 

• Walking footage 

– Subject walks towards camera. 

• Activity / Conversation footage 

– Non-frontal footage of subject performing an

activity / conversation. 
Video Challenge Submissions 

Organization 

Pittsburgh Pattern Recognition 
Walking vs. Walking 

Notre Dame Notre Dame 

976 sequences 976 sequences 

Standard Definition 

976 sequences 

Standard Definition 

976 sequences 
University of Texas at Dallas 

Walking vs. Walking 

487 sequences 
Walking vs. Walking Results 

Results from an Open Book Challenge Problem, NOT an Independent Evaluation 
Walking vs. Activity 

Activity vs. Activity 

Walking Activity 

976 sequences 784 sequences 

Activity 

784 sequences 

Activity 

784 sequences 

Experiment uses both high definition and standard definition. 
Walking vs. Activity ROC 

Activity vs. Activity ROC 

Results from an Open Book Challenge Problem, NOT an Independent Evaluation 
Walking vs. Activity ROC 

Activity vs. Activity ROC 

Reigning Champions from MBGC V1 2008 

Results from an Open Book Challenge Problem, NOT an Independent Evaluation 
University of Texas at Dallas 

Walking vs. Conversation 

Conversation vs. Conversation 

NO SUBMISSIONS 

487 sequences 482 sequences 
Human Benchmarking with Video 
Information in Surveillance Video 

What is helpful for recognition? 

• multiple images of face 

• multiple images of body 

• dynamic information about gait 

– “dynamic identity signatures” 

• facial motion 
Walking - Walking 

• Human subject raters respond... 

– 1. sure they are the same person 

– 2. think they are the same person 

– 3. not sure 

– 4. think they are not the same person 

– 5. sure they are not the same person 
Machine & Human Performance 
Walking - Conversation 

• Human subject raters respond... 

– 1. sure they are the same person 

– 2. think they are the same person 

– 3. not sure 

– 4. think they are not the same person 

– 5. sure they are not the same person 
Conversation - Conversation 

• Human subject raters respond... 

– 1. sure they are the same person 

– 2. think they are the same person 

– 3. not sure 

– 4. think they are not the same person 

– 5. sure they are not the same person 
Performance All Video Conditions 
Human Performance Face Stills 

• Human subject raters respond... 

– 1. sure they are the same person 

– 2. think they are the same person 

– 3. not sure 

– 4. think they are not the same person 

– 5. sure they are not the same person 
Video and Still 
There is Head Room 
Summary 

• New challenges 

• Algorithms cannot handle non-frontal activity 

• Human benchmark
##### 



Exhibit 32.A 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ending
December 31, 2004, of ANR Pipeline Company (the Company) as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen C. Beasley,
Chairman of the Board and President, certify (i) that the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. /s/ Stephen C. BeasleyStephen C. BeasleyChairman of the Board and President

(Principal Executive Officer) 
 
November 15, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ANR Pipeline Company and will be retained by ANR Pipeline Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
|   | (1) | the      Quarterly Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the      quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange      Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | information      contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the      financial condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley      Vineyards, Inc. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    |  /s/ James W. Bernau     |   |
|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | James      W. Bernau          |   |
| Title: | Chief      Executive Officer  |   |

----