alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Appendix D: ROC plots grouped by dataset. 

The ROC plots are shown in three different groups. The first group is for datasets DOSC, DHS2-C, VISIT_POE, VISIT_BVA (plots for left/right index), BEN, DHS10, and 

TXDPS (plots for left/right index/thumb). The last two groups are OHIO and SD29 

(thumb, index, middle, ring, and little). For each dataset there is a separate plot for each 

finger in the dataset, for example DOS-C has one ROC for right index and another for 

left index. 

D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-11
Plots for the OHIO (p2p) data start here. 

D-12
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
Plots for the OHIO (p2r) data start here.

D-17
D-18
D-19
D-20
D-21
Plots for the SD29 (p2p) data start here. 

D-22
D-23
D-24
Plots for the SD29 (p2r) data start here.

D-25
D-26
D-27
Plots for the SD29 (r2r) data start here. 

D-28
D-29
D-30
Exhibit 32.2

                            MICROPAC INDUSTRIES, INC.

                             CERTICATION 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  of  Micropac  Industries,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  November 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Patrick Cefalu, CFO of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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 operations of the Company.


 /s/ Patrick Cefalu
--------------------
Patrick Cefalu, CFO
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### W. H. Bradley v. John S. King.

Wills — Construction.

The provisions of a will held to- be so plain and unequivocal as not to- require construction.

APPEAL PROM CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT.'

December 12, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Under the second item of the last will of John C. King, deceased, appellee, John S. King, took one hundred acres of land off the south end of the tract upon which the testator resided (to be so laid off as not to be injurious to the balance of the tract), with the privilege of waiting till his mother’s death, and then, instead of taking the identical one hundred acres set apart to him by the will, of having it laid off to him out of any portion of the four hundred acres it was supposed would remain after the devise of Robt. C. King was satisfied.

In the event he waited until his mother’s death, he was to take, with his sisters, because of the fact that they, as remaindermen, were entitled under the will to all the land not covered by the two devises to Robert C. and John S. King. Having exercised the privileges of postponement, upon the death of his mother, appellee *361became, by operation' of law, a tenant in common with his sister, Mrs. Bradley, entitled to one hundred acres of land, to be allotted to him out of the tract according to the principles of' equity.

*Drane,*/. /. *Orr; for appellant.*

*Winslow, for appellee.*

He cannot, however, take as survivor any portion of the land devised to his three sisters. It is useless to conjecture as to whether or not the testator intended equality in the division of his estate between appellee and these sisters. His language is plain and unambiguous, as to the land devised to his wife for life. Upon her death it was to be equally divided between, the three daughters, Betsy Ann King, Margaret Jane King,- and Mary Louisa King, and if either of them should die without issue *“the other surviving daughters*are to have the estate of the deceased daughter equally between them.” The import of this language cannot be mistaken; nothing is left for construction. The intention of the testator is manifest from what he has said in his will, and the courts have no, right to consider proof tending to show that he either did not make the will he should have made, or expressed in his will an intention contrary to that which, from the circumstances surrounding him, we would assume he entertained.

The survivorship is confined to the three daughters named; and it is impossible, without disregarding the language of the will, to give the appellee the benefit of the devise made, by the third clause, to the testator’s wife and daughters, except one hundred acres to be laid off to appellee as before indicated. Mrs. Bradley is entitled to all the lands involved in this controversy.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a judgment conformable to this opinion.
#### Joseph H. Bruce v. City of Louisville.

Municipal Corporations — Lessening Term or Abolishing Office of Mayor.

The office of mayor of a city being a- legislative office, the Legislature may repeal or so modify the act of incorporation as to lessen the term of the office,, or abolish the office, notwithstanding one has been elected thereto under the original enactment.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON' CIRCUIT COURT.

November 3, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

The only question presented in this case is whether the legislature, after creating by enactment a municipal corporation to aid in its internal government and having officers elected under it, can repeal or so modify the act of incorporation as to lessen the period or destroy altogether the offices to which persons have been elected under the original enactment. Bruce was elected mayor under the old charter of the city of Louisville, and before the expiration of his term a new charter was created by the legislature for the city, and the office of mayor made elective under its provisions, prior to the termination of the period for which he was elected, or in other words his office by this new charter was lessened in its duration. The authorities are so well understood on this question as not to admit of discussion.

Cooley on Constitutional Limitations says: “On this point it would seem that there could be no difficulty. When the state employs officers or creates municipal corporations as the mere agencies of the government, it must have the power to discontinue the agency when it is not longer important. The framers of the constitution did not intend to restrain the states in the regulation of their civil institutions adopted for internal government. They may therefore discontinue offices and abolish or change a municipal corporation at any time, according to the existing view of state policy, unless forbidden by their state constitution from doing so.” There is nothing in our state constitution prohibiting such legislative action, and no' such officer as that of the mayor of the city of Louisville is created by it. This office owes its existence to the legislative action alorfe, and upon that *275it must depend. This court, in the case of Gibbons v. Young, 2 Duvall 440, has passed upon this identical question, and we perceive no reason for departing from it.

*Jeff Brown, for appellant.*

*Burnett, for appellee.*

Judgment is affirmed.
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 2 Roof to Skylight Flashing

Item 2 Roof to Skylight Flashing – Flashing to protect sides of skylight to prevent against combustible debris ignition and embers.

Insufficient flashing Flashing around skylight

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
Installation Cautions 

 Fire Hazards 1. Debris accumulation on back

or surrounding skylight panels.

1. Use fire resistant caulking2. No combustible material

should be exposed. 

· Hardening Action: Check for standard metal flashing and that no exposed wood is present, repair as necessary. · Applicable Conditions: Lack of metal flashing around skylight · Performance Goal: Prevent ignition of combustible skylight framing Color Key: · Brown: wood

· Gray: Metal Step Flashing· Black/Dark Gray: Counter Flashing 

e: A 

/1 1 2 1
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of American Power Conversion Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 27, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald M. Muir,Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration, and Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Donald M. Muir                                  |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                |
| Donald M. Muir                                      |
| Senior Vice President,  Finance and Administration, |
| and Chief Financial  Officer                        |
|                                                |
| May 6, 2005                                         |

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separatedisclosure document.

 

1

----
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4340 

To require investigations by institutions of higher education of violent felonies 

occurring on campus. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2004 

Mr. SWEENEY (for himself and Mr. MCNULTY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To require investigations by institutions of higher education 

of violent felonies occurring on campus. 

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 ‘‘Suzanne Lyall Campus 

5 Safety Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INVESTIGATIONS BY INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER 

7 EDUCATION OF VIOLENT FELONIES. 

8 Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

9 U.S.C. 1092) is amended— 
2 

•HR 4340 IH 

1 (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub2 section (h); and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the fol4 lowing new subsection: 

5 ‘‘(g) INVESTIGATION OF SERIOUS VIOLENT FELO6 NIES.— 

7 ‘‘(1) PLANS FOR INVESTIGATION OF SERIOUS

8 VIOLENT FELONIES.—Each institution of higher 

9 education shall, within one year after the date of en10 actment of the Suzanne Lyall Campus Safety Act, 

11 adopt and implement a plan providing for the inves12 tigation of any serious violent felony occurring at or 

13 on the grounds of each such institution, and pro14 viding for the investigation of a report of any miss15 ing student. Such plans shall provide for the coordi16 nation of the investigation of such crimes and re17 ports with local law enforcement agencies. Such 

18 plans shall include, but not be limited to, written 

19 agreements with appropriate local law enforcement 

20 agencies providing for the prompt investigation of 

21 such crimes and reports. 

22 ‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this subsection: 

23 ‘‘(A) LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGEN24 CIES.—The term ‘local law enforcement agen25 cies’ means any agency or agencies employing 
3 

•HR 4340 IH 

1 peace officers or police officers for the enforce2 ment of the laws of a State, and which has or 

3 have jurisdiction under provisions of the crimi4 nal procedure law over offenses occurring at or 

5 on the grounds of any institution subject to the 

6 provisions of this subsection. 

7 ‘‘(B) MISSING STUDENT.—The term ‘miss8 ing student’ means any student of an institu9 tion subject to the provisions of this subsection 

10 who resides in a facility owned or operated by 

11 such institution and who is reported to such in12 stitution as missing from his or her residence. 

13 ‘‘(C) SERIOUS VIOLENT FELONY.—The 

14 term ‘serious violent felony’ means a serious 

15 violent felony as such term is defined by section 

16 3559(c) of title 18, United States Code.’’. 

Æ
Similarities and Differences between Metactronics and Electronics

Nader Engheta

University of Pennsylvania

Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania U.S.A.

E-mail: engheta@ee.upenn.edu

The fields of electronics, micro- and nanoelectronics have seen unprecedented developments 

in the past several decades as an excellent paradigm for information processing. The 

underlying mechanism in electronics is the ability to control the motion of charged particles, 

e.g., electrons and holes, and as a result manipulating electric currents. But is the motion of 

charged particles the only current we encounter? The electric displacement current is of 

course another important current, particularly as one considers higher frequencies such as IR 

and optical regimes. How can we then manipulate, tailor, and control the displacement 

currents at the nanoscale? The concepts of metamaterials and plasmonic optics provide us 

with the tools to tame the displacement currents at optical frequencies. This is at the basis of 

the field of metactronics – metamaterial-inspired optical nanocircuitry-- which we have been 

developing in my group (N. Engheta, Science, 317, 1698, September 21, 2007). Metactronics 

offers a novel paradigm for nanoscale optical information processing. The metactronic 

circuits exhibit exciting features that are not available in their electronic counterparts. In this 

talk, I will present some of the major distinctions between the two fields of metactronics and 

electronics.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAMES P. MEJIA,

Appellant,

v.

ROSA B. MEJIA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-3106

[March 30, 2022]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Linda A. Alley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

18005173 FMCE (40).

James P. Mejia, Santiago, Dominican Republic, pro se.

Hugo A. Rodriguez of The Law Offices of H.A. Rodriguez, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the parties’ revisiting 

issues surrounding the Qualified Domestic Relations Order during the 

final hearing.

GROSS, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET DATED APRIL 3, 1998 AND THE UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 3, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1998
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,220
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,375
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,167
<PP&E>                                          10,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,893
<BONDS>                                          4,307
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,619
<SALES>                                          7,250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,250
<CGS>                                            2,358
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,299
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  82
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    512
<INCOME-TAX>                                       175
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                337
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       337
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
#### T. M. and Marshall Wells *v.*Liberty Lacefield.

Libel and Slander — Innuendo.

In an action for .slander, the words of the petition cannot he changed or enlarged by innuendo.

Libel and Slander — Vulgar and Offensive Answer.

■An answer in an action for slander, which is unnecessarily vulgar and offensive and evinces an entire want of respect for the court, should be stricken from the record.

APPEAL FROM ROCKCASTLE CIRCUIT 'COURT.

June 17, 1873.

*C. Kirtly, for appellant.*

*Bradleys, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The demurrer to the petition was properly sustained. The words import no charge that would subject the party to action for slander. The meaning of the words can not be enlarged or changed by an innuendo. *Porter v. Hughey,*2 Bibb. 232. The answer filed in this case should be stricken from the record. No greater contempt could be offered a court than the filing of such a pleading. It is unnecessarily vulgar and seems to have been prepared with a view of elucidating not only the individual feeling towards the parties instituting the action but to evince an entire want of respect for the tribunal in which these proceedings were had. It does not appear from the record that those filing it were required to answer for the contempt. We take it for granted, however, that such an indignity was not allowed to pass unnoticed.

The judgment is *affirmed.*
SUMMARY OF INTERIM INCENTIVE OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM



 Exhibit 10(cc) 
  
 SUMMARY OF INTERIM INCENTIVE OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM 
  
 The program was established to provide an interim incentive opportunity for eligible employees of Sprint Nextel Corporation,
including executive officers other than Gary D. Forsee and Timothy M. Donahue. The program provides for a potential bonus opportunity of up to 15% of the targeted annual bonus if specified wireless subscriber additions and EBITDA (earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) targets of differing weightings for participants in the wireless and the local telecommunications business are met for the period from September 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. 
  
 The following table sets forth the maximum bonus for the period from
September 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005 for each executive officer of Sprint Corporation and Nextel Communications named in that company’s summary compensation table for 2004, included in the joint proxy statement/prospectus, dated
June 10, 2005, filed as part of our registration statement on Form S-4 (Registration Statement No. 333-123333), who is an executive officer of Sprint Nextel participating in the program. 
  
 Thomas N. Kelly, Jr., Chief Strategy Officer - $105,000 
  
 Leonard J. Kennedy, General Counsel - $ 50,625 
  
 Len J. Lauer, Chief Operating Officer - $168,000 
  
 Paul N. Saleh, Chief Financial Officer - $ 90,000 
  
 Barry J. West, Chief Technology Officer - $ 36,000
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                      
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U. S. Dollars               
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1999         
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1998   
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998   
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1   
<CASH>                             1,383,174  
<SECURITIES>                               0           
<RECEIVABLES>                        898,004  
<ALLOWANCES>                          30,000  
<INVENTORY>                          927,948  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   3,469,123  
<PP&E>                             9,208,646  
<DEPRECIATION>                     2,982,287  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    10,959,228  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              1,266,695  
<BONDS>                            2,570,765  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0  
<PREFERRED>                        2,500,000  
<COMMON>                              78,423  
<OTHER-SE>                         4,543,345  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      10,959,228  
<SALES>                            3,675,024  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      32,252  
<CGS>                              2,593,863  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   1,043,111  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    50,598  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       19,704  
<INCOME-TAX>                           7,900  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   11,804  
<DISCONTINUED>                             0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0  
<CHANGES>                                  0  
<NET-INCOME>                          11,804  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .00  
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .00  
        


</TABLE>