alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Galbreath *v.*McNeily.

Promissory *Note.—Pleading.—Breach of*Covenant.—Where the defence to a suit upon a promissory note, given for a conveyance of land, rests upon a breach of a covenant in the deed, a copy of the deed must be filed with the answer.

APPEAL from the Bartholomew Circuit Court.

Worden, J.

Action by the appellant against the appel*232lee on a promissory note executed by the defendant to the *plaintiff*

*F. T. Hord,*for appellant.

The defendant answered, in substance, that the note was given in consideration of certain land sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, and conveyed by warranty deed, and that the title to one-third of the land had failed, *setting out*the particulars. No copy of the deed was set out.

Demurrer to the answer for want of sufficient facts overruled, and exception. Such further proceedings were had as that judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, but for a much less sum than appeared to be due on the note.

The foundation of the defence was not a failure of consideration ; for if a party accept a deed of conveyance of land without covenants, he cannot, in the absence of fraud, set up a failure of title in defence of an action for purchase-money which he has agreed to pay. The foundation of the defence, which, though pleaded by way of showing a failure of consideration, may be regarded as a counter claim, was the covenant or covenants in the deed from the plaintiff to the defendant. As this deed was not set out, nor any part of it, nor a copy filed, the answer was fatally defective, and the demurrer should, therefore, have been sustained. *Church*v. *Fisher, ante,*p. 145.

There are some other questions made in the cause, but it is unnecessary to consider them. They cannot be intelligently decided in the absence of the covenants which constitute the foundation of the defence.

The judgment below is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Exhibit 10.4(c)










 

EXHIBIT 10.4(c)







                                                   

	 	
		P. O. Box 5110

	 	

Denver, Colorado 80217


		
	 	

5500 South Quebec Street


		
	 	

Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111


		
	 	

Phone: (303) 740-4000


		
	 	

Fax: (303) 740-4002








 

September
2, 2005




Mr. Jay D. Nielsen

Chief Financial Officer

National Beef Packing Company, LLC

12200 N. Ambassador Drive, Suite 500

Kansas City, Missouri 64163




Re:    Fourth
Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the "Credit Agreement") 

dated as of
December 29, 2004 between National Beef Packing Company, LLC 

("National  Beef"),
various Issuers, Lenders and Agents, and CoBank, ACB, as 

Administrative Agent




Dear Jay:




            By your letter of August 23, 2005 you requested
a waiver of the requirements of Section 10.6 of the Credit Agreement in
connection with your proposed sale of National Beef's 33,358 shares of the
Principal Financial Group.  I'm pleased to report that the Required Lenders
have authorized CoBank, as Administrative Agent, to agree to your request.  As
a result, subject to your countersignature below, National Beef may sell the
33,358 shares notwithstanding Section 10.6 of the Credit Agreement (and without
using up the $1 million "bucket" in Section 10.6(d)) so long as National Beef
uses the sale proceeds only for its ordinary working capital needs.




            By your countersignature below, you will agree
to the terms of this letter and will represent and warrant to the Lenders, the
Issuers and the Swing Line Lender that no Default or Matured Default will be
continuing at the time of the shares sale.




            Please understand that this waiver is applicable
only to this particular asset sale and that, except for this waiver, the Credit
Agreement will remain in full force and effect.




            This letter will be governed by and construed in
accordance with Colorado law, without regard to the application of conflict of
laws principles.  All terms used but not otherwise defined in this letter shall
have the meanings given them in the Credit Agreement.

 

 

1




























Mr. Jay Nielsen

National Beef Packing Company, LLC

September 2, 2005

Page 2






 




 
















	
   	
  Very truly yours,
	
    	
   
	
   	
  CoBank,
ACB, as Administrative Agent
	
    	
   
	
    	
   
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ James Stutzman

  
	
  Its:

  	
  Vice President

  
	
   	
   
  
	
   	
   
  
	
   	
  National Beef Packing Company, LLC
	
   	
   
  
	
   	
   
  
	
  By:	
  /s/ Jay D. Nielsen

  
	
  Its:	
  Chief Financial Officer

  














 
















 

 

 

 

2
MAYTAG CORPORATION

                                   Exhibit 12
                
                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges.
















<PAGE>
                               MAYTAG CORPORATION
                                   Exhibit 12
                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                 (Amounts in thousands of dollars except ratios)


                                          Year Ended December 31
                             1995       1994       1993       1992       1991

Consolidated pretax
  income from continuing
  operations before
  extraordinary item
  and cumulative effect
  of accounting changes  $  59,804  $ 241,337  $  89,870  $   7,546  $ 123,417
 
Interest expense            52,087     74,077     75,364     75,004     75,159

Depreciation of
  capitalized interest       1,695      1,772      1,546        933        348

Interest portion of
  rental expense             8,789     10,722     10,480     11,264     11,177

Earnings                 $ 122,375  $ 327,908  $ 177,260  $  94,747  $ 210,101

Interest expense         $  52,087  $  74,077  $  75,364  $  75,004  $  75,159

Interest capitalized         2,534        547      1,484      3,886      6,329

Interest portion of
  rental expense             8,789     10,722     10,480     11,264     11,177

Fixed charges            $  63,410  $  85,346  $  87,328  $  90,154  $  92,665

Ratio of earnings to 
  fixed charges               1.93       3.84       2.03       1.05       2.27
<PAGE>
Using AI to Classify Neutron 

Diffraction Patterns into Bravais 

Lattices

Satvik Lolla

Poolesville HS
Neutron Diffraction

◉ Determine the atomic structure

◉ Use powder

2
Bravais Lattices

◉ Build off the 7 crystal systems

◉ Includes where the crystal is centered

3
Purpose & Rationale

◉ Use AI to differentiate between Bravais 

Lattices

◉ First step to identifying the position of atoms 

from diffraction scans

◉ Automate expensive task

4
2 Methods

5
Convolutional Neural Network

◉ Most commonly used image 

classification algorithm

◉ Had 14 outputs

6
Convolutional Layers

◉ Apply filter to image

◉ Extract high level features

◉ Reduce dimensionality

7

Source: https://towardsdatascience.com/pytorch - basics- how-to-train- your- neural- net-intro- to- cnn26a14c2ea29
Max Pooling

◉ Further reduce dimensionality

◉ Reduce parameters → reduce training time

◉ Summarizes features

8
Model Architecture

◉ LeNET

○ One of the most basic CNNs

○ Includes 6 layers

◉ ResNet- 34

○ “Skip connections”

9
3 Results & Discussion

10
Results

◉ Accuracy with LeNET: 80.5%

◉ Accuracy with ResNet: 87.6%

11
Confusion Matrix

12
Discussion

◉ Most studies use 2D networks

○ Obscures data and adds noise

◉ Highest accuracy with 2D model: 70%

◉ Highest accuracy with 1D model: 84%

○ Implemented on X-ray data

13
Conclusions

◉ 1D ResNet model is more accurate than 

current Bravais Lattice classifiers for neutron 

data

◉ Future work

○ More balanced dataset

○ Semi- supervised learning

■ Incorporate unlabeled data in training 

set

14
Semi-Supervised GAN

◉ Uses 2 models: Generator & Discriminator

◉ Zero sum game

◉ Labels = Bravais Lattice

15
Issues while training GANs

◉ Mode Collapse

○ Generator predicts the same images

○ Discriminator never learns

◉ Vanishing Gradients

○ Discriminator is too good

○ Generator stops learning

16
Acknowledgements

◉ Dr. William Ratcliff (NCNR)

◉ Dr. Gilad Kusne (MML)

◉ Dr. Austin McDannald (MML)

◉ Dr. June Lau (MML)

◉ Haotong Liang (UMD)

17
Any questions ?

Thanks!

18
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

Independent Auditor's Consent

We consent to the use in this Registration Statement of OpTel, Inc. on form S-4
of our report dated October 14, 1997, on the financial statements of OpTel,
Inc., and our report dated May 15, 1998 on the financial statements of the
Assets and Liabilities of ICS Communications, LLC acquired by OpTel, Inc. as of
and for the year ended December 31, 1997, each appearing in the Prospectus,
which is part of this Registration Statement and of our report dated October 14,
1997 relating to the financial statements schedules appearing elsewhere in this
Registration Statement

We also consent to the reference to us under the headings "Summary Consolidated
Financial and Operating Data", "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial and 
Operating Data" and "Experts" in such Prospectus.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
September 4, 1998
#### H. S. Buckner & Co. *v.*Peter Wilkerson et al.

Bankruptcy — Proof of Claims — Waiver of Right of Action.

Persons who have proved their claims against a bankrupt in the bankrupt court, thereby waived their right to maintain an action therefor in,] the state court.

APPEAL PROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

March 7, 1874.

Dulaney, *for appellants.*

*W. Underwood, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

Having proved their claims against the appellants for the benefit of the bankrupt law in the bankrupt court, appellants thereby waived their right to maintain their action in the state courts, and the benefits they might otherwise have derived from any provisional remedy they may have resorted to. Sec. 21, Bankrupt Law.

If they desired to secure the costs they had incurred in the prosecution of their suit in the court _ below, they should have proved the amount of those costs in the bankrupt court, where they doubtless would have been allowed.

It seems to this court that the court below did not err in discharging the attachment. Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
null

930.9565
Sally Bruce, Quality System Task Force Chair

Claire Saundry, President, SIM

APROBACIÓN DEL SISTEMA DE 

GESTIÓN DE LA CALIDAD

APPROVAL OF 

QUALITY MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM 

National Institute of Standards of Technology (NIST) – USA

Photometry and Radiometry - Photometry, Properties of Materials, and 

Properties of Detectors and Sources

The Quality Management System supporting measurement 

services, as defined in a motion of the Quality System Task 

Force (QSTF), has been reviewed and found to be in 

conformance with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2017, 

ISO 17034:2016, and 17043:2010 under the mandate of the 

Inter-American Metrology System in support of the 

expectations of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement.

El Sistema de Gestión de Calidad en que se apoyan los servicios 

de medición, según se define en una moción del Grupo de 

Trabajo del Sistema de Calidad (QSTF), ha sido revisado y se 

ha determinado que cumple con los requisitos de ISO/IEC 

17025:2017, ISO 17034:2016, y 17043:2010 bajo mandato del 

Sistema Interamericano de Metrología en apoyo de las 

expectativas del Acuerdo de Reconocimiento Mutuo del CIPM.

Approval date: 31 October 2022

Expiration date: 31 October 2027
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE
13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, James W. Bernau, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Willamette Valley
Vineyards, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the
small business issuer and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the
audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2007
/s/ James W. Bernau
    James W. Bernau,
    Chief Executive and Financial Officer
NIST PSCR RESEARCH INVESTMENTS BOLSTER 

TENNESSEE’S ECONOMY 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Public Safety 

Communications Research (PSCR) Division is the primary federal laboratory 

focused on conducting research, development, testing, and evaluation for 

public safety communications technologies. Their mission is to accelerate 

communications innovation in support of public safety communities and the 

citizens they serve. 

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 allocated $300 Million 

from the Public Safety Trust fund to NIST PSCR to perform critical public safety 

communications R&D during a 10-year period. PSCR implemented numerous 

research mechanisms to support the development and deployment of the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network: grants, Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) contracts, prize challenge competitions, and internal research. 

These research mechanisms were housed within six research portfolios and crosscutting initiatives to maximize their impact: 

•	 User Interface/User Experience •	 Public Safety Analytics 

•	 Location-Based Services •	 Security 

•	 Mission Critical Voice •	 Resilient Systems 

While the ultimate impact of these research mechanisms is the increased safety 

of first responders and their communities through improved communications

technologies, PSCR was interested in better understanding how their R&D 

investments to date result in economic impacts that ripple outward to state 

economies. An independent analysis was conducted to demonstrate how PSCR’s 

deployment of the $300 Million from the Public Safety Trust Fund translated into 

broader impacts to the United States, including jobs, earnings, value added, and 

total economic output. PSCR’s R&D investments resulted in economic output 

in 33 of the 50 states. Results of the analysis are presented here. 

For more information, see NIST PSCR’s Economic Impact Study. 

1 Grant Award 

Totaling $0.5 Million 

City of Memphis 

For additional information of PSCR’s research programs, visit https://www.nist.gov/ctl/pscr. 

TENNESSEE BY THE NUMBERS 

NIST INVESTMENT 

$0.5 Million 

OUTPUT 

$1.2 Million 

VALUE-ADDED 

$2.4 Million 

EARNINGS 

$1.2 Million 

JOBS 

19 

Output: the total value of economic 

activity circulating through the U.S. 

economy generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Value-Added: how much the 

combined U.S. state economies 

grew over a period of time due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

Earnings: the change in household 

earnings in the U.S. economy 

generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Jobs: the change in the number of 

full- and part-time jobs generated 

by each one million dollar change 

in U.S. economic activity due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

*All dollar amounts presented 

in 2022 and reflect data as of 

October 2022.

**All values are rounded; thus, the 

sum of the components may not 

sum exactly to the NIST Investment 

amount.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4620 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4620

   To confirm the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Commodity Credit Corporation to enter into memorandums of understanding 
   with a State regarding the collection of approved State commodity 
   assessments on behalf of the State from the proceeds of marketing 
                           assistance loans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2004

Mr. Nethercutt (for himself and Mr. Hastings of Washington) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To confirm the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Commodity Credit Corporation to enter into memorandums of understanding 
   with a State regarding the collection of approved State commodity 
   assessments on behalf of the State from the proceeds of marketing 
                           assistance loans.

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

SECTION 1. COLLECTION OF APPROVED STATE COMMODITY ASSESSMENTS ON BEHALF 
              OF STATES FROM MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOAN PROCEEDS.

    (a) Collection on Behalf of States.--Subtitle B of title I of the 
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 is amended by inserting 
after section 1209 (7 U.S.C. 7939) the following new section:

``SEC. 1210. COLLECTION OF APPROVED STATE COMMODITY ASSESSMENTS ON 
              BEHALF OF STATES FROM MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOAN PROCEEDS.

    ``(a) Collection on Behalf of States.--At the request of a State, 
the Secretary or the Commodity Credit Corporation shall enter into a 
memorandum of understanding with the State to collect, on behalf of the 
State, approved State commodity assessments from the proceeds of 
marketing assistance loans.
    ``(b) Effect of Assessment Rate Changes.--The Secretary and the 
Commodity Credit Corporation may not terminate a memorandum of 
understanding with a State for the collection of approved State 
commodity assessments (or refuse to extend or modify such a memorandum 
of understanding) on the grounds that the State has changed the 
assessment rate.''.
    (b) Reinstatement of Memorandums.--The Secretary of Agriculture and 
the Commodity Credit Corporation shall reinstate, at the request of a 
State, any memorandum of understanding that was entered into between 
the Secretary or the Corporation and the State for the collection of 
approved State commodity assessments on behalf of the State, but was 
terminated before the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Michael T. Williams, Esq.
                               2503 W. Gardner Ct.
                                 Tampa FL 33611
                               Phone: 813.831.9348
                                Fax: 813.832.5284
                         e-mail: wmslaw@tampabay.rr.com


November 11, 2005

Megola, Inc.

Via e-mail

Re: Engagement Agreement

 Dear Sirs:

         This letter sets forth the terms by which this I will be engaged in
connection with matters described below. I agree that the terms and conditions
of the engagement shall be as set forth in this letter.

1. Engagement. I have been engaged as special counsel for Megola, Inc. (the
"Company") to assist in the SEC reporting requirements.

The term of the engagement shall be for the period from December 1, 2005 to
November 30, 2006.

2. Fees, Costs and Expenses. My fee shall be 375,000 shares of common stock.
These shares will be registered on Form S-8 as soon as possible. I will prepare
at my expense the S-8 registration statement and related legal opinion. The
registration statement will only include my shares, unless otherwise mutually
agreed in accordance with our firm's current policy. If at any time you
terminate this agreement except for my material non-performance, all shares
shall be fully vested and remain outstanding.

The Company shall be responsible for all out-of-pocket expenses in connection
with this project, including, but not limited to, SEC and state filing fees,
state blue sky fees and expenses, EDGAR fees, messenger, overnight courier,
printing, travel, S&P, Transfer Agent, CUSIP, printing and blue sky counsel
fees.

IT IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE FOR ME TO KNOW AT ALL TIMES THAT YOU ARE
SATISFIED WITH THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ME. So that there will always be full
and open communication between me, and so that I may clearly understand and
promptly deal with any concerns you may have about my services, you agree to let
me know immediately in writing of any concerns you may have about the services I
perform for you. If you wait to inform me of your concerns until a later time,
it may no longer be possible for me to take any meaningful steps to address
those concerns. At no time will I make any charge for time spent discussing such
matters.

If there are any questions concerning this agreement, please contact the
undersigned.

<PAGE>

If it is agreed that the foregoing sets forth the conditions of my engagement,
please sign the extra copy of this letter where indicated and return it.

                                                     Sincerely,



                                                     Michael T. Williams, Esq.

The above is understood and agreed to:

Megola, Inc.



By _____________________________________
      Joel Gardner, Authorized Officer
# Third District Court of Appeal
Stat e of Florida
Opinion filed February 28, 2024. Not final unti l dispositi on of timely filed mot ion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23-1517 Lower Tribunal No. 17

- 15305

________________ 

### A.P.B., the Father, Appellant,

vs. 

### T.C.-M., the Mot her, et al. ,

Appellee s. An Appeal from t he Circuit Court f or Miami-Dade County, Jason Emilios Dimitris, Judge. Deborah A. Schroth, (Orange Park) , for appellant. Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, Assistant Director of Appeals (Tallahassee), for appellee Guardian a d Litem; Karla Perkins, for appellee Department of Children and Families; Schlesinger Law Gro up and Michael J. Schlesinger , for appellee T.C.

- M., the Mother

. Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and LOBREE , JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See A.P.B. v. T. C.

- M. , 315 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).