alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
January 2008

May 2009

November 2017

November 2016 September 2016

April 2016

September 2012

October 2015

August 2010

First NICE Conference

Gaithersburg, MD

First NICE K12 Cybersecurity 

Education Conference

Initiative 8 of the Comprehensive National 

Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) calls for 

Expanding Cybersecurity Education and 

Inception of the National Initiative for 

Cybersecurity Education (NICE)

First NICE Strategic Plan and 

First Draft of NICE Cybersecurity 

Workforce Framework

First Annual National Cybersecurity Career Awareness Week and

Report to the President on Supporting the Growth and Sustainment of the 

Nation’s Cybersecurity Workforce

Publication of NICE Cybersecurity Workforce Framework as 

NIST Special Publication 800-181

Inception of the NICE Webinar Series and

launch of CyberSeek

Launch of NICE Regional Alliances and 

Multistakeholder Partnerships to Stimulate 

(RAMPS) Cybersecurity Education and Workforce 

Development

Second NICE Strategic Plan and Launch of the quarterly NICE eNewsletter

June 2015

Inception of the NICE 

Interagency Coordinating 

Council (ICC)

 Inception of NICE Working Group 

May 2015

November 2013

 Inception of NICE Challenge Project

Executive Order 13800 Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal 

Networks and Critical Infastructure calls for supporting the growth and 

sustainment of a workforce that is skilled in cybersecurity

July 2018

Executive Order Establishing The 

President’s National Council For The 

American Worker and the American 

Workforce Policy Advisory Board

The White House releases 

a National Cyber Strategy that includes a pillar that places 

priority action on developing 

a superior cybersecurity workforce 

May 2019

Executive Order on America’s Cybersecurity 

Workforce 

August 2017 May 2017

Celebrating 10 Years of Annual Conferences for the 

National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE)

Cyberspace Policy Review prioritizes Increasing 

Cybersecurity Education and Expanding 

Federal Information Technology Workforce

 We’re celebrating 10 years of the NICE Conference and Expo

 this year.

 

 

 

 nist.gov/nice

 nice.nist@nist.gov

 @NISTCyber

NICE CONFERENCE and EXPO

 

 2010 - Gaithersburg, Maryland

 2011 - Gaithersburg, Maryland

 2012 - Gaithersburg, Maryland (cancelled due to hurricane Sandy)

 2013 - Gaithersburg, Maryland

 2014 - Columbia, Maryland 

 2015 - San Diego, California

 2016 - Kansas City, Missouri

 2017 - Dayton, Ohio

 2018 - Miami, Florida

 2019 - Phoenix, Arizona

 We’re celebrating 5 years of the NICE K12 Cybersecurity

 Education Conference this year.

 NICE K12 CYBERSECURITY 

EDUCATION CONFERENCE

 2015 - Lithicum, Maryland

 2016 - Arlington, Virginia

 2017 - Nashville, Tennessee

 2018 - San Antonio, Texas

 2019 - Garden Grove, California

 LEARN MORE ABOUT THE HISTORY OF NICE ON WIKIPEDIA

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Initiative_for_Cybersecurity_Education

September 2018
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-326-CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF BUFORD SCOTT, JR.

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

	FROM COUNTY COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Buford Scott, Jr. attempts to appeal the trial court’s September 3, 2009 “Order Approving Motion for Independent Medical Evaluation.”  On October 15, 2009, we notified Scott of our concern that the court lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because the order does not appear to be an appealable interlocutory order.  We also informed Scott that the appeal would be dismissed unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court on or before October 26, 2009, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  We have received no response.  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); see also De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006) (discussing tests to determine whether interlocutory probate court orders are appealable).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL:  MEIER, LIVINGSTON, and McCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED:  NOVEMBER 25, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             154
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      303
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           6,661
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                          5,512
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,281
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,891)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,606
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,654
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,343
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 369
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (58)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (58)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)


</TABLE>
The main point of this feedback is to request that educational assessment technology be added to the

short list of technologies generally deserving of intensive federal participation in standards setting

activities, and specifically deserving of being included as a special focus of the public roundtable on

January 25th.

It should go without saying that education is as much of a national priority as the Smart Grid, electronic

health records, cybersecurity, cloud computing, and emergency communications.  The special urgency

of this request however stems from the current federally funded Race to the Top Assessment Program

which has provided funding to two Consortia of states “to develop a new generation of assessments

intended to yield timely data to enhance instruction, accelerate learning, and provide accurate

information on how our students and schools are performing.”

(http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/Assessments_for_the_Common_Core_Standards.pdf).

The importance of establishing new assessment technology standards in relation to this effort has

already been recognized by the U.S. Department of Education through an RFI published in the Federal

Register on 12/20/2010 (http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/12/20/2010‐31881/assessment‐

technology‐standards‐request‐for‐information‐rfi).

The fact that this is a high priority concern of the private sector and one in which the private sector is

prepared to take the initiative is well represented in a recent white paper issued by Pearson on Next

Generation Assessment Interoperability Standards

(http://psychcorp.pearsonassessments.com/pai/ai/about/news/NewsItem/newsrelease111510.htm).  

Pearson (NYSE:PSO), the global leader in education and education technology, provides innovative print

and digital education materials for preK through college, student information systems and learning

management systems, teacher licensure testing, teacher professional development, career certification

programs, and testing and assessment products that set the standard for the industry.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Michael J. Strait, Ph.D. 

Director, Student Certification and Assessment 

National Academy Foundation 

2150 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 1200 

Berkeley, CA 94704 

415.692.1569 

www.naf.org

mstrait@naf.org
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4603 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4603

     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the 
 nonrecognition of gain on real property held by individuals or small 
   businesses which is involuntarily converted as the result of the 
exercise of eminent domain, without regard to whether such property is 
                               replaced.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 2004

  Mr. Filner 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 provide for the 
 nonrecognition of gain on real property held by individuals or small 
   businesses which is involuntarily converted as the result of the 
exercise of eminent domain, without regard to whether such property is 
                               replaced.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Eminent Domain Relief for the Little 
Guy Act''.

SEC. 2. NONRECOGNITION TREATMENT FOR REAL PROPERTY HELD BY INDIVIDUALS 
              OR SMALL BUSINESSES WHICH IS INVOLUNTARILY CONVERTED AS A 
              RESULT OF EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN.

    (a) In General.--Section 1033 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to involuntary conversions) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection:
    ``(k) Condemnation of Real Property Held by Individuals and Small 
Businesses.--
            ``(1) In general.--If real property held by the taxpayer is 
        (as the result of its seizure, requisition, or condemnation, or 
        threat or imminence thereof) compulsorily or involuntary 
        converted, at the election of the taxpayer (in such form and 
        manner as the Secretary may prescribe)--
                    ``(A) no gain shall be recognized, and
                    ``(B) subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply with 
                respect to such conversion.
            ``(2) Not applicable to certain large businesses.--
        Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case of a partnership or 
        corporation unless such partnership or corporation meets the 
        gross receipts test of section 448(c) for the taxable year in 
        which the disposition of the converted property occurs.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to dispositions of converted property occurring after December 31, 
2003.
                                 <all>
```
#### Commonwealth for Lawrence County Court *v.*Walter Osborne et al.

Counties — County Court — Authority of Agent.

A comity court can speak only through, its orders entered of record, and its agents must trace their authority to such orders, and their rights and powers must he determined therefrom.

■ Highways — Pleading—Action Against Superintendent of Roads.

In an action against the superintendent of roads to- compel him to turn oyer the property and funds in his hands to his successor, the fact that the county court appointed an agent to demand and receive the property and money in the defendant’s hands should he alleged, the mere statement that he was the proper officer or agent being a mere conclusion, and insufficient.

APPEAL PROM LAWRENCE CIRCUIT COURT.

December 3, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The petition does not show that the act of February 17, 1866, was approved by a majority of the qualified voters of Lawrence County. Hence we can not adjudge that the county court of that county had the authority to take and approve the bond sued on.

Waiving this defect, however, the petition, as amended, is. still fatally defective.

There could be no cause of action against Osborne, the superintendent of roads, until he was directed, by the county court, to turn over the property and fund's in his hands, to his successor in office, or to some other agent of the county, and refused or failed to observe the order. The petition did not allege that he had a successor in office, nor did it show that the county court ever made any order touching the property, and money for which Osborne was sued, except to direct the county attorney to institute the action.

The averment is, that the county court by “its proper agents and officers, made frequent and repeated demands,” etc.

The county court speaks only through its orders entered of record. Its agents must trace their authority to such orders, and from them the extent of their rights or powers, are to be determined.

If the county court appointed an agent to demand and receive the property and money in Osborne’s hands, or if it directed one of *394the county officers to perform this duty, that fact should have been alleged, so that it might be determined from the petition whether the agent or officer making the demand was, as matter of law, the proper agent or officer of the county court. The statement that he was the proper “agent or officer,” is but an allegation of a conclusion of law. The demurrer was properly sustained, and appellant, failing to amend further, the court did not err in dismissing the petition.

*Hatcher & Burns, for appellant.*

*Rodman, for appellees.*

Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 10(h)**

 

**SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF TRUSTEES’ COMPENSATION**

 

The compensation paid to each Individual Trustee and the Corporate Trustee is set forth in the Amendment to the Agreement of Trust dated as of October 25, 1982 (the “Amendment”).  The Amendment is filed as Exhibit 3(a) to the Form 10-K.

 

Pursuant to the Amendment, each Individual Trustee receives at least $20,000 in annual compensation for services as Trustee.  Each year, annual Trustee compensation is adjusted up or down (but not below $20,000) in accordance with changes from the November 1981 level of 295.5 (the “1981 Escalation Level”) in the All Commodities Producer Price Index (with 1967 = 100 as a base).  The All Commodities Producer Price Index is published by the U.S. Department of Labor.  The adjustment is made at the end of each fiscal year and is calculated on the basis of the proportion between (a) the level of such index for the November preceding the end of such fiscal year, and (b) the 1981 Escalation Level.  Each of the Individual Trustees received $38,082 in cash compensation for services to the Trust during the fiscal year ended January 31, 2011.

 

Also pursuant to the Amendment, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as the Corporate Trustee, receives annual compensation in an amount equal to the greater of (i) $20,000, or such other amount determined in accordance with the adjustments described in the preceding paragraph, or (ii) one quarter of one percent (1/4 of 1%) of the Trust Moneys, exclusive of proceeds of sale of any part of the Trust Estate (as such terms are defined in the Agreement of Trust), received by the Trustees and distributed to Trust Unitholders.

 

Additionally, each year the Corporate Trustee receives $62,500 (or more, if unanimously approved by the Individual Trustees) to cover clerical and administrative services to Mesabi Trust other than services customarily performed by a registrar or transfer agent.  In fiscal 2011, the Trust paid the Corporate Trustee $62,500 to cover clerical and administrative services to Mesabi Trust and $11,798 for services as registrar and transfer agent.  The Corporate Trustee earned $145,781 in total compensation for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2011.

 

----
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 441

To amend Public Law 107–10 to authorize a United States plan to endorse 

and obtain observer status for Taiwan at the annual summit of the 

World Health Assembly in May 2003 in Geneva, Switzerland, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2003

Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. COX, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. SHERMAN, and Mr. 

WEXLER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations 

A BILL

To amend Public Law 107–10 to authorize a United States 

plan to endorse and obtain observer status for Taiwan 

at the annual summit of the World Health Assembly 

in May 2003 in Geneva, Switzerland, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC LAW 107–10. 

4 (a) FINDINGS.—Section 1(a) of Public Law 107–10 

5 (115 Stat. 17) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 
2

•HR 441 IH 

1 ‘‘(14) The government of Taiwan, in response 

2 to an appeal from the United Nations and the 

3 United States for resources to control the spread of 

4 HIV/AIDS, donated $1,000,000 to the Global Fund 

5 to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.’’. 

6 (b) PLAN.—Section 1(b)(1) of Public Law 107–10 

7 (115 Stat. 17) is amended by striking ‘‘May 2002’’ and 

8 inserting ‘‘May 2003’’.

Æ
#### John A. Duff, etc., *v.*Robt. W. Rose.

New Trial — Impeachment of Witnesses — Absence of Party.

The absence of appellant from the trial of the cause is no reason why a new trial should have been allowed him. The fact that he would have been able to impeach some of the witnesses who testified against him would not have entitled him to a continuance.

*28Contracts — Misrepresentation—Instructions.

It was not erroneous to instruct to the effect that if appellant agreed to take ten additional hogs to make up the supposed average of two hundred pounds per head, nothing should be found on account of misrepresentation as to the weight, made by appellee.

APPEAL PROM ESTILL CIRCUIT COURT.

September 4, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The absence of the appellant front the trial of this cause is no reason why a newi trial should have been allowed him. The fact that he would have been able to impeach some of the witnesses who testified against him would not have entitled him. to a continuance had he made application therefor upon that ground alone.

Besides this, the repeated continuance had upon his motions very strongly indicates that his principal object in the litigation was delay.

Appellant has no right to complain that certain portions of his depositions, which were mere recitals of hearsay testimony, were excluded, nor that his motions to exclude competent testimony taken by appellee were overruled.

The fact that one witness, adopted the testimony or deposition of another, amounts to> nothing in view of the fact that such witness was cross-examined at length by appellant.

Instructions Nos. 1, 2, and 3, given by the court, present the law of this, case even more favorable to appellant than should have been done, in view of the fact that the measure of damages fixed in case the jury should find for him on his counterclaim, embraced the expense incurred in driving the unspayed sows, in addition to the difference in value at the time and place of delivery.

It was not erroneous to instruct to the effect that if appellant agreed to take ten additional hogs to make up the supposed average of two hundred pounds per head, that nothing should be found on. account of representations as to weight made by appel-lee. This is not in conflict with the instruction first given to the effect that he was responsible for representations as to size of hogs not seen by appellants.

But independent of this appellant voluntarily received and kept all the hogs after they had been gotten out of the field, and when there was no pretense that they co.uld not be examined by himself or his agent.

*29
      *Lilly, for appellants.*

*Caldwell, for appellee..*

Feeling satisfied that the judgment appealed from is consistent with the substantial justice of the case it must be affirmed.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.6



The Board of Directors
of WorldCom, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration statement on
Form S-8 of WorldCom, Inc. of our report dated February 12, 1998, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheets of Brooks Fiber Properties, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in
the Form 8-K of WorldCom, Inc. dated May 28, 1998.


                                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


St. Louis, Missouri
August 28, 1998
Exhibit 32.1

                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 of Mexco Energy Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ending  March 31,  2004,  as filed with the SEC on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nicholas C. Taylor, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company,  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 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.


Dated:  June 29, 2004                              /s/ Nicholas C. Taylor
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   President and Chief Executive
                                                   Officer