alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31(b)



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert H. Lazar, certify that:

| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of EVI Industries, Inc.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Robert H. Lazar

Robert H. Lazar

Principal Financial Officer

Date: October 28, 2019
10935.

#### Williams *v.*The State.

Decided December 9, 1919.

Indictment for possession of intoxicating liquor; from Brooks superior court—Judge Thomas. September 5, 1919.

According to the evidence for the State, the defendant, when *546arrested at the railroad-station in Thomasville, on the charge of having whisky in his possession, had in his arms a package containing about ten half-pints of whisky, and was standing among several suit-eases filled with pints and half-pints of whisky, one of which was marked “Moses Williams, Thomasville, Ga.” The defendant had a minor son of that name, and was then living near Thomasville. The only person near him when the officers first saw him on that occasion was his brother Arch Williams. A train had just passed and several passengers had alighted and gone off. The suit-cases against which the defendant was standing were between the main line and a side-track of the railroad. When told of the charge against him the defendant said, “You have got me. Can’t we settle it in some way?” And he proposed that the officers take the whisky and let him go. He did not deny to the officers that he owned the suit-cases; he said nothing about them. Two of the suit-eases, including the one marked with the name Moses Williams, were introduced in evidence, over the objection of the defendant that they had not been identified as belonging to him, and were irrelevant and immaterial. These two suit-cases were the physical evidence referred to in the first paragraph of the foregoing decision.

*545Broyles, C. J.

1. The court did not err in admitting the physical evidence as complained of in the special ground of the motion for a new trial. This evidence was a circumstance in the case and was admissible for what it was worth.

2. The evidence amply authorized the defendant’s conviction, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*

*546
      *Bonnet & Harrell,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. E. Hay, solicitor-general,*contra.
NVLAP LAB BULLETIN NUMBER: LB-73-2013 PAGE: 1 of 1

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

ISSUE DATE:

April 25, 2013

LAB BULLETIN

NUMBER: LB-73-2013

LAP: Electromagnetic 

Compatibility & Telecommunications (ECT)

SUBJECT: Release of NIST Handbook 150-11, 2013 Edition

NIST Handbook 150-11, which presents the technical requirements and guidance for the accreditation of 

laboratories under the NVLAP Electromagnetic Compatibility and Telecommunications (ECT) program, 

has been revised, along with the corresponding NIST Handbook 150-11 checklist. The new edition was 

revised with the participation of technical experts in the field of electromagnetic compatibility and 

telecommunications testing and supersedes and replaces all previous editions.

The following is a summary of the revisions contained in the 2013 edition:

Section 1.3 (Program description) has been modified to update the test areas included in the ECT 

program;

Section 1.4 (References) and Section 1.5 (Terms and definitions) have been updated;

Section 3.3.2 (Typical on-site assessment) has been revised to reduce redundancy with NIST 

Handbook 150;

Section 3.3.4 (Demonstrations) has been updated to clarify Test Site validation;

Section 4.2 (Management system) has been revised to reduce redundancy with NIST 

Handbook 150;

Section 4.15 (Management reviews) has been updated;

Section 5.2 (Personnel) has been revised to remove the interval requirement related to the 

evaluation of staff performance;

Section 5.3 (Accommodation and environmental conditions) has been updated to clarify the test 

site requirements and include provisions for the Connection of Terminal Equipment;

Section 5.4 (Test methods and method validation) has been updated to clarify the measurement 

uncertainty requirements;

Section 5.5 (Equipment) has been updated to clarify the requirements for equipment producing 

transient waveforms;

Section 5.6 (Measurement traceability) has been updated;

Section 5.9 (Assuring the quality of test results) has been expanded to address the planning and 

frequency of the quality control activities;

Annex A (Information about selected ECT standards) has consolidated Table 1, Table 2 and 

Table 3 into a single table.

This bulletin has been posted to the NVLAP Program-Specific Handbooks and Lab Bulletins page of the 

NVLAP website: http://www.nist.gov/nvlap. Questions concerning the requirements for accreditation 

should be directed to Beth Hackett, phone: 301-975-6113, e-mail: bethany.hackett@nist.gov; or Brad 

Moore, phone: 301-975-5740, e-mail: brad.moore@nist.gov.
#### Maxine RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 00-7120.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 10, 2001.

Maxine Richardson, Westbrook, CT, pro se.

Ann F. Bird, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Hartford, Hartford, CT, for appellee.

Present JACOBS, PARKER and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Maxine Richardson appeals Judge Underhill’s order dismissing her employment discrimination claim on timeliness grounds. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. *See Richardson v. Hartford Bd. of Educ.,*No. 3:98 CV 1910 (D.Conn. Oct. 26, 1999).
**EXHIBIT 31.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Nicole Altenburg, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K of Mines Management, Inc.; and

 

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.

 

Date: April 28, 2016

 
|   | /s/ Nicole Altenburg            |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | Nicole Altenburg                |
|   | *Principal   Financial Officer* |

 

----
#### Romeo A. LAZO; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-55205.

D.C. No. CV-99-00985-IEG.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.*

Decided May 29, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs Romeo A. Lazo and Jane Strachan-Lazo appeal pro se the district court’s Order Denying Plaintiffs “Motion for (1) Review and Reconsideration of Order; (2) Entry of Default; (3) Equitable Relief; and (4) Leave to Amend Pleadings or File Reply Brief.” We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

A district court may reconsider its grant of summary judgment under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment). *School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). Under either theory, our review of a denial of a motion to reconsider is for abuse *of*discretion. *Id.*

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Lazos’ motion to reconsider because the Lazos merely reiterated meritless arguments. They did not provide newly discovered evidence or argue any other basis for reconsideration. *See Maraziti v. Thorpe,*52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir.1995).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for entry of default, *see Eitel v. McCool,*782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir.1986), equitable relief, *see Lazo v. Home Savings of America, F.A.,*96-0018-BTM (LSP), at 7-13 (S.D. Cal. filed Sept. 4, 1996), *aff'd*139 F.3d 905 (9th Cir.1998), and leave to amend the complaint or file a reply brief, *see Noll v. Carlson,*809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.1987).

We do not consider the Lazos’ contention that Appellees violated the automatic stay because the Lazos did not adequately raise this issue in the motion to reconsider. *See Crawford v. Lungren,*96 F.3d 380, 389 n. 6 (9th Cir.1996).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Maria Anderson, plaintiff and respondent, *vs.*Patrick Dickie, defendant and appellant.

It was decided in this case, that after judgment entered absolutely, a case though made and settled on notice, can not be annexed to the judgment roll, except by a special order; and without such order an appeal is to be heard on the judgment roll itself.

Before Robertson, White and Barbour, JJ.

Heard June 1st, 1863

decided November 14th, 1863.

See the points decided, in the index to this volume, under the title Practice—Case, Appeal.

See the motion to strike the cause from the calendar, with the opinion of the court by Robertson, J. reported in 17 *Abbott’s Pr.*83. *S. C.*26 *How. Pr.*199.
Exhibit
        10.26

      


      October
        19, 2005

      Ms.
        Barbara Pifel

      Weill
        Medical College of Cornell University

      Office
        of
        Research & Sponsored Programs

      1300
        York
        Avenue, Box 89

      New
        York,
        NY 10021

      


      Dr.
        Brij
        B. Saxena

      Weill
        Medical College of Cornell University

      515
        East
        71st
        Street,
        Room 412

      New
        York,
        NY 10021

      


      Re:
         Sponsored
        Research Agreement between Marc Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and 

      Weill
        Medical College Cornell University dated January 22, 2004 (the
“Agreement”)

      


      Dear
        Barbara:

      


      In
        connection with the Agreement, we have been asked to indicate our intention
        with
        respect to the second year of the term in order that you can make appropriate
        arrangements with the necessary scientific personnel.

      


      This
        is
        to confirm that we intend to continue the Agreement for a second year and
        to
        fund the research during that year. However, given various circumstances
        surrounding the research project, we believe that there should be a modification
        to the payment amount and structure for the second year. To fully replace
        the
        $312,500 payment which was to have been due on December 1, 2005 for the second
        year’s research, we would like the payments for year two to be $250,000 and the
        payment schedule to be as follows:

      


      
        	
                November
                  1, 2005

              	
                $25,000

              
	
                March
                  1, 2006

              	
                $50,000

              
	
                June
                  1, 2006

              	
                $75,000

              
	
                September
                  1, 2006

              	
                $100,000

              


      

       

      We
        trust
        that the foregoing will be acceptable to you as a modification to the Agreement.
        If it is, please indicate your confirmation by signature and return of the
        enclosed copy.

       

      Sincerely,

      Marc
        Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

      


      By:_____________________

      Name:
        Robert M. Cohen

      Title:
        President

      


      We
        hereby
        confirm our agreement and understanding of the foregoing:

      


      Weill
        Medical College of Cornell University

      


      By:______________________________

      Name:

      Title:_____________________________

      


      Principal
        Investigator

      


      __________________________

      Dr.
        Brij
        B. Saxena
Handbook 130 – 2024 Appendix C. 2023 Editorial Changes

321

Appendix C. 2023 Editorial Changes

The following items were deemed editorial in nature based on the following criteria: 1) the modified text did not 

change the meaning or procedure outlined, 2) modified text corrected an omission or clarified how the text was 

written, or 3) the item itself was reformatted and relocated in the text to make the organization of the content more 

meaningful.

Note: For the purposes of this table, the bold, underscored text indicates new language added and bold, strikeout

text indicates deleted text.

Law or Regulation Section Action Page

Entire Handbook

Citations now formatted as:

Name, Volume Source § xxx (Year).

• Example: Special safeguards for

automated records, 5 C.F.R. §

293.107 (2011).

I. Introduction

A. Source Updated NCWM Mailing address 1

H. Effective Enforcement

Dates of Regulations

7. Uniform E-commerce Regulation

(effective date of enforcement January 1,

2025)

2 

Form 15 Updated Form 4

Fuels and Lubricants Section 2.17. Biodiesel 

Blendstock

Editorial Correction for duplicate 

language.

2.17. Biodiesel Blendstock. – Biodiesel 

intended for blending with diesel fuel shall 

meet the latest version of ASTM D6751, 

“Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel 

Blend Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate 

Fuels.” Any blend stock less than 99 % by 

volume biodiesel (no more than 1 % by 

volume diesel fuel). Any blend stock less 

than 99 % by volume shall not be used as 

a commercial blend stock for biodiesel 

blends without the permission of the 

Director. 

194
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

ISSUE DATE:

June 11, 2014

LAB BULLETIN NUMBER: LB-82-2014

LAP: Common Criteria 

Testing

SUBJECT: Revision of the NVLAP Common Criteria Testing Laboratory Accreditation 

Program Handbook, NIST Handbook 150-20

NVLAP announces the revision of its Common Criteria Testing (CCT) Laboratory Accreditation 

Program (LAP) handbook, NIST Handbook 150-20, to incorporate changes to the NVLAP 

accreditation process for laboratories accredited in the CCT LAP. NIST Handbook 150-20, 

which presents the requirements and guidance for accreditation of laboratories under the CCT 

program, was revised to align the NVLAP program with changes from the National Information 

Assurance Partnership (NIAP) Common Criteria Evaluation Validation Scheme (CCEVS). 

The new June 2014 edition of NIST Handbook 150-20 supersedes and replaces all previous 

editions. It is available for downloading (PDF format) from the NVLAP website at: 

http://www.nist.gov/nvlap/upload/NIST-HB-150-20-2014.pdf. 

Implementation of the revised requirements are effective immediately. Due to the nature of the 

changes, immediate assessment of laboratories accredited in the CCT program is not required; 

however, any upcoming assessments will be performed against the requirements published in the 

June 2014 handbook.

Questions concerning the revised handbook or requirements for accreditation should be directed 

to Dana Leaman, dana.leaman@nist.gov, 301-975-4679.

NVLAP LAB BULLETIN NUMBER: LB-82-2014 PAGE: 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28589]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MB Docket No. 14-46, RM-11717, DA 14-1334]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Rough Rock, Arizona

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: At the request of The Navajo Nation, the Audio Division amends 
the FM Table of Allotments, by allotting FM Channel 258C2 at Rough 
Rock, Arizona, as a first local Tribal Allotment and a first local 
service to the community. A staff engineering analysis confirms that 
Channel 258C2 can be allotted to Rough Rock consistent with the minimum 
distance separation requirements of the Commission's Rules with the 
imposition of a site restriction 7.1 km (4.4 miles) southeast of the 
community. The reference coordinates are 36-21-08 NL and 109-49-54 WL.

DATES: Effective December 5, 2014, and applicable October 31, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MB Docket No. 14-46, adopted September 15, 2014, and 
released September 16, 2014. The full text of this Commission decision 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased 
from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, 
Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 
telephone 1-800-378-3160 or via email www.BCPIWEB.com. This document 
does not contain information collection requirements subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The Commission will 
send a copy of the Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress 
and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
Nazifa Sawez,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.


Sec.  73.202  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Arizona, is 
amended by adding Rough Rock, Channel 258C2.

[FR Doc. 2014-28589 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Exhibit 23.1 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTCERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 

        Wehave issued our reports dated March 30, 2004 accompanying the consolidated financialstatements and supplemental schedule included in the Annual Report of Mestek, Inc. andsubsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Mestek, Inc.on Form S-8 (File Numbers 333-06429, effective July 9, 1996 and 333-82067, effective July1, 1999). 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts
#### John W. Stone *v.*Hales & Moss, etc.

Exemptions — Construction of Statute.

IThe court will give a liberal construction to statutory provisions relating to exemption of property for the benefit of housekeepers.

Exemptions — Property Exempt.

Under the exemption law relating to bread stuffs and animal food, tobacco is not exempt as an article of food.

APPEAL FROM HICKMAN CIRCUIT COURT.

September 20, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

This court is disposed to give a liberal interpretation to the language used in the statute with reference to- the exemption of property for the benefit of housekeepers from sale under execution.

We think the meaning of the statute is plain. If there is not a sufficiency of breadstuffs and animal food, then so much of the livestock suitable for animal food, or so much of the growing crop suitable for breadstuffs, as may be necessary to- supply the deficiency will be exempt. In order to exempt the tobacco- from sale, we would have to adjudge that it could be used as a substitute for bread, and whilst the chewing of it may be regarded as a luxury by some, it *111was never contemplated by the lawmakers that the wife and children should or could subsist by its use.

*Silvertooth & Son, for appellants.*

*E. J. Bullock, for appellees.*

Judgment *affirmed.*
Fingerprints and Palmprints: 

Research Datasets

Anil K. Jain

Michigan State University

January 26, 2015
Friction Ridge Patterns

Cummins and Midlo, Finger Prints, Palms and Soles, Dover, 1961 2
Fingerprint Applications: 

Data Requirements

• Forensics

– Latents & exemplar

• Law enforcement

– Rolled & slap

• Homeland Security

– Slap

• Consumer/financial

– Access control (Disney)

– Mobile device (iPhone, Goodix)
Palmprint Applications: 

Data Requirements

• Forensics

– Latent & slap palmprints (high resolution)

• Access Control 

– Slap palmprints (mostly low resolution)
Public Domain Fingerprint Databases

Type Database Data size Year released Comments

Latent & 

exemplar 

fingerprints

NIST SD27 258 latents & mates 2000 Latent matching 

WVU 449 latents & mates 2008-2010 research

Rolled

NIST SD4 2,000 X 2 

fingerprints 1992

Classification and 

matching research NIST SD14 27,000 X 2 

fingerprints 2002

Digital video NIST SD24 100 fingers 1998 50 males and 50 

females

High resolution NIST SD30 360 fingerprints 2001 Both 500 and 1000 

ppi

Optical FTIR, 

capacitive & 

sweep

FVC 17,760 fingerprints 

of 2,360 fingers

2000, 2002, 

2004, 2006

Including real and 

synthetic 

fingerprints

Cross device 77,760 fingerprints

of 720 fingers 2012 9 sensors 

Spoof LivDet 44,000 prints; spoof 

made of 5 materials

2009,2011, 

2013

Fake and real 

fingerprints
Example Latent Fingerprints

Latents Mates

Example from 

NIST SD27

Example from 

WVU database
Example Plain Impressions

Fingerprints from FVC2004

Optical sensor by 

CrossMatch

Optical sensor by 

Digital Persona

Sweeping sensor 

by Atme

Synthetic 

fingerprint
Example Spoof Fingerprints

Real fingerprint Ecoflex Gelatin

Latex Silicone Woodglue
Public Domain Palmprint Databases

Type Database Data size Year released Comments

Low resolution

(~100 ppi)

PolyU 

palmprint 7,752 palmprints 2003 386 different palms

PolyU 

Multispectral 

palmprint 

6,000 palmprints 2008 250 subjects

High resolution

(500 ppi) THUPALMLAB 1,280 palmprints 2011 80 subjects

Latent 

palmprint LPIDB v1.0

380 latent 

palmprints and 

mates of 100 

different palms

2014 28 males and 

23 females
Example Palmprint Images

A 75 ppi palmprint A 500 ppi palmprint 
Research Problems in Need of Large 

Friction Ridge Data

• Train deep networks to learn (i) friction ridge 

models, and (ii) fingerprint similarity

• Scalability studies of AFIS

• Analyze individuality of friction ridge patterns

• Persistence of friction ridge accuracy; 

longitudinal study

• Minimum age at which fingerprints can be 

collected