alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# FILED
February 5, 1999 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE RICHARD C

APANY OLA, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C

01-9811-CC-00472 Appellant, ) ) WAYNE COUNTY VS. ) (No. 1156 1 Bel ow) ) STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) The Hon. Robert Ho lloway ) Appellee. ) (Dismissal of HabeasCorpus Petition) ) AFFIRMED PU RSUANT TO R ULE 20

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon the state's motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. After reviewing

the state’s motion, the appellant’s brief, and the record on appeal, the Court finds that this is an appropriate matter for affirmance under Rule 20.

The petitioner is appealing the t rial cour

t's denial of his petition for w rit of habeas corpus. In January of 1994, the petitioner was indic ted on two counts

of rape of
a child under the age of 13. Subse quently, t he petition er pled guilty to tw o counts of aggravatedrape. The petitioner contends that the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea of the offense charged. He also argues that because theculpable mental state was not included in the indictment, the trial court was without j urisdiction to enter judg ments of conviction.

While hab eas corpus is a proper vehicle for seeking review of whether an indictment

is fatally defective, thus deprivi ng the trial court of jur isdiction, Dykes v. Compton , 978 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tenn. 1998), the petitioner in th e present case is not entitled to relief based

on our Supreme Court’s opinions i n State v. Hill , 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997), and Crittenden v. State , 978 S.W.2d 929, 93 0 (Tenn. 1998).

IT IS, THER EFORE, ORDERE D that t he state ’s moti on to affi rm t he judgmentpursuant to Rule 20 is g ranted. The judgment of t he trial court is hereby affirmed. The petitioner being indigent, costs of this appeal are taxed tothe state. IT IS-2-

FURTHERORDERED that the appellant’s request for appointment of counsel, which was attached to his brief, is res pectfully denied.

_____________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE CONCUR:

_____________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDG E

_____________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
Cybersecurity workforce needs change more quickly than traditional occupations. To ensure that the 

workforce is adequately prepared for future cybersecurity challenges, it is important that traditional 

models for educating the workforce be expanded to better connect educational partners, industry, and 

government officials. From my perspective, the Regional Alliances for Multistakeholder Partnerships 

Program, funded by NIST and led by NICE, provides an excellent model for connecting the pieces that 

need to be connected to address the cybersecurity workforce puzzle. Being a part of the one of the 

RAMPS programs, I have seen firsthand the benefits of regional alliances between educators, business 

leaders, government officials, and others. In our own case, with a few months we saw important 

changes to our workforce development efforts that will enhance the cybersecurity workforce capacity in 

our region. I hope that the RAMPS program can be continued and expanded. We have developed two 

documents. One is an information brochure we developed as part of our regional 

partnership. Specifically, one of our local economic development directors partnering in our program 

suggested that having information about cybersecurity educational efforts in the region will help 

economic development directors “sell” the region to new businesses. The other is a mid-project report

providing an update about program, the Hampton Roads Cybersecurity Education, Workforce, and 

Economic Development Alliance (HRCyber).

Brian K. Payne, PhD

Chair, HRCyber

Vice Provost

Old Dominion University
Exhibit 18-1

August 14, 2000

MCN Energy Group Inc.
500 Griswold Street
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Dear Sirs/Madams:

At your request, we have read the description included in your Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2000, of the facts relating to the change in the method of accounting
for natural gas inventories, held by the Energy Marketing segment, from the
last-in, first-out cost method to the fair value method. We believe, on the
basis of the facts so set forth and other information furnished to us by
appropriate officials of the Company, that the accounting change described in
your Form 10-Q is to an alternative accounting principle that is preferable
under the circumstances.

We have not audited any consolidated financial statements of MCN Energy Group
Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period
subsequent to December 31, 1999. Therefore, we are unable to express, and we do
not express, an opinion on the facts set forth in the above-mentioned Form 10-Q,
on the related information furnished to us by officials of the Company, or on
the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of MCN Energy Group
Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period
subsequent to December 31, 1999.

Yours truly,

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 Detroit, Michigan
The HONORABLE GEORGE F. GUNN, JR., late a United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations

of the HONORABLE DAVID D. NOCE, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3668

___________

Donnie E. Blankenship, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Michael Groose, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 6, 1998

 Filed: November 9, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donnie Blankenship appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C.

1

§ 2254 petition. Having carefully reviewed the record, including the magistrate judge’s

thorough thirty-nine page report and recommendation, as well as the parties’

submissions, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in the

report and recommendation adopted by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We
-2-

also deny Blankenship’s motions for appointment of counsel and access to a law clerk,

and deny the government’s motion to quash the certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Effective 10.1.2014

NCNR Data Management Plan

PURPOSE | The purpose of this Data Management Plan (DMP) is to articulate the NCNR 

approach to data preservation and access. 

SUMMARY | The NIST Center for Neutron Research is a national user facility providing 

access to neutron measurement instruments to thousands of researchers from industry, 

academia, and government agencies. Products of the NCNR include neutron measurement 

data created using NCNR neutron measurement instruments and data that are presented in 

figures and tables in publications. 

The NCNR defines raw data as raw measurement counts collected using the data acquisition 

system for a neutron scattering instrument at the NCNR. 

The NCNR defines published data as data that is presented in figures or tables in publications in 

which a NIST author or co-author is responsible for creating those figures or tables.

SCOPE | The scope of this data management plan includes raw data and published data. The 

scope of this DMP does not include data files collected under the auspices of an NCNR Facility 

Use Agreement for Proprietary Use.

DATA TYPES AND CLASSIFICATION | Data produced by the NCNR neutron 

measurement instruments are in electronic form and they are machine-readable.

PRESERVATION | All NCNR raw data within the scope stated above are archived 

automatically by the NCNR. The responsibility for preserving published results (i.e. the means 

by which the data is preserved) resides with the individual NCNR researcher and will be 

performed consistent with NIST policy and NCNR leadership directives.

DISCOVERABILITY & ACCESS | All NCNR raw data within the scope stated above are 

made available to the public following an experiment unless the researcher who collected the 

raw data opts out. In those cases when the researcher opts out, the raw data will be made 

available after 18 months from the creation date. The data files are made available to the public 

via external FTP server, ftp.ncnr.nist.gov.

All NCNR published data within the scope stated above are made available upon request of the 

NCNR scientist.

When the NIST Enterprise Data Inventory (EDI) becomes available, the metadata1 associated 

with NCNR raw data within the scope stated above will be entered into the EDI. 

1 The term “metadata” used here does not refer to domain-specific metadata such as wavelength, detector 

pressure, or instrument configuration parameters, for example. Here metadata refers to title, description, tags, 

last update, publisher, contact name, contact email, unique identifier, public-access level, and other elements in 

the NIST Extensible Metadata Scheme as articulated in the NIST Order 105.01 for Managing Public Access to 

Results of Federally Funded Research.
WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND III, L.P.



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Principal Executive Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Principal Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                                         
|Leo F. Wells, III Principal Executive Officer November 13, 2006  
|                                                                 
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                       
|Douglas P. Williams Principal Financial Officer November 13, 2006
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135989 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 135989 

 COA: 273488 

Ottawa CC: 05-028876-FC 

MICHAEL ALLEN MILLER, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the 

issues: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the defendant’s conviction 

and remanding this case to the circuit court for a new trial pursuant to People v DeHaven, 

321 Mich 327 (1948); (2) whether DeHaven was wrongly decided or has been superseded 

by MCL 600.1354(1); (3) whether a criminal defendant must establish actual prejudice 

pursuant to MCL 600.1354(1) where the challenged juror was excusable for cause; 

(4) how the “actual prejudice” standard for purposes of MCL 600.1354(1) should be 

defined; and (5) whether the juror’s failure to disclose his status as a felon, which 

disqualified him from serving on the jury, constituted structural error pursuant to Neder v 

United States, 527 US 1; 119 S Ct 1827; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999). 

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys 

Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups 

interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court 

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. 

s0506 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 9, 2008 

Clerk
EMANUEL R. WATTS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 2203

________ _____________________/

Opinion filed September 15, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Suwannee County

. David W. Fina , Judge

.

Emanuel R. Watts, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
10881.

#### Powell *v.*City of Dublin.

Bloodworth, J.

The petition for certiorari in this case contains the following: “Petitioner avers that he has given the bond as required by law in such cases made and provided, conditioned that ho be and appear personally to answer any judgment, order, sentence or decree of either the recorder’s court of the City of Dublin or of the superior court of Laurens county, which bond was duly approved by the chief of police of the City of Dublin, who is clerk of the recorder’s court of said City of Dublin, which bond was duly filed with said clerk and Chief of Police, J. J. Flanders.” Section 5191 *{a)*of Park’s Ann. Code (Acts 1902, p. 105) provides that “Any person who shall seek a writ of certiorari to review and correct the judgment of any recorder’s court, or of other police court, of any town or city, by whatever name known,, shall first file with the clerk of said court or if no clerk with the judge of said court, except when the defendant is unable from poverty to give bond and a proper pauper affidavit is furnished, a bond payable to the municipal corporation under which such court exists, in amount and with surety acceptable to and approved by the said clerk or judge, as the ease may be, conditioned for the personal appearance of the defendant to abide the final order, judgment or sentence of said court, or of the superior court, in said case.” The petition in this case does not show that the bond alleged to have been given was *360“a bond payable to the municipal corporation under which such court exists,” and contains no reference to the amount of the bond. The pauper affidavit provided by the statute was not attached to the petition, nor was a copy of the alleged bond incorporated in the petition or attached thereto. Under the rulings in *Hubert*v. *Thomasville,*18 *Ga. App.*756 (90 S. E. 720), and *Gillespie*v. *Macon,*19 *Ga. App.*1 (90 8. E. 970), the judge did not err in refusing to sanction the certiorari. See *Williams*v. *Dublin,*ante, 358.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Petition for certiorari; from Laurens superior court—Judge Kent. July 26, 1919.

*W. A. Dampier,*for plaintiff in error. *T. A. Evans,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          537,122
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,510
<OTHER-SE>                                   (601,632)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,955
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,955)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,955)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,955)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
NVLAP LAB BULLETIN NUMBER: LB-104-2017 PAGE: 1 of 1

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

ISSUE DATE:

August 15, 2017

LAB BULLETIN

NUMBER: LB-104-2017

LAP: Common Criteria 

Testing

SUBJECT: NIST HB 150-20: Annex B, B.3.a - Program-specific procedures - UPDATE

NVLAP announces the revision of Annex B, clause B.3.a. 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, Annex B, B.3 states:

“The following program-specific procedures shall be implemented before the activity is 

undertaken, e.g., procedure for writing PP-specific assurance activity instructions before an 

evaluation is conducted: 

Previous requirement

“a) writing a work plan for an evaluation;”

Updated requirement

“a) writing a detailed work plan for an evaluation. This detailed work plan shall be submitted to 

NIAP prior to an evaluation demonstrating knowledge of, and compliance with, all NIAP 

policies and procedures. The work plan shall also include a list of the activities to be performed 

during an evaluation and shall comply with the CCTL's management system."

Implementation of the revised requirement is effective immediately and will be included in the 

next revision of NIST Handbook 150-20. Due to the nature of the change, an extraordinary 

onsite assessment of laboratories accredited in the CCT program is not required; however,

upcoming assessments will be performed against this updated requirement. 

Questions concerning the revised requirement for accreditation should be directed to Brad 

Moore, brad.moore@nist.gov, or ph: 301-975-5740.
Workshop I ‐ Future of NFIQ 

Elham Tabassi 

March 1, 2010  
NFIQ – test of 3me 

+ 

∸ Novel defini9on of 

biometric quality  

– performance related 

– accepted by the community 

∸ Interoperability  

– uniform interpreta9on 

– tuned to a class of matcher  

∸ Open source 

∸ Extensively examined 

– by NIST and others 

– tools for quality 

summariza9on, slap, ... 

_ 

∸ Aging   

–  recogni9on technology 

has advanced since 2004. 

∸ Efficiency 

– ~300 msec per image ‐ not 

fast enough for real 9me 

– takes 4 9mes for 4‐finger 

slap 

∸ Not enough levels 

– S9ll sta9s9cally significant 

∸ Not enough NFIQ 4 

∸ September 17, 2009  elham.tabassi@nist.gov 
Op3ons for NFIQ 2.0 ‐ 1 

∸ Do nothing! 

∸ Incremental updates to NFIQ towards NFIQ 2.0 

– An improved NFIQ, generalized vanilla flavor 

• feature extrac9on, training data, machine learning algorithm are all 

done by NIST 

– No ability to customize it to a par9cular applica9on 

– Limited collabora9on with industry 

∸ Modular NFIQ 2.0 

– Plug‐and‐play feature vector 

• Improves efficiency in field opera9ons 

– NIST does the training using its large sets of data 

• Generalized or specialized to a par9cular comparison algorithm

• Feedback to vendors  

– Expands the marketplace of interoperable products 

• Calibrated quality in standardized range [0,100] 

We like to hear your comments, sugges9ons.  3 
 op3ons for NFIQ 2.0 ‐ 2 

4 

quality 

Number 

[0,100] 

 feature       func3on  

extrac3on          approximator 

 by NIST 

(Clear box) 

vendor supplied 

(black box) 

Standardized 

feature + vendor  

proprietary 

(gray box) 

By NIST 

Generalized or 

Algorithm dependent 

We like to hear your comments, sugges9ons.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-04-00706- CR K e vin Jo se ph A r c e ne aux , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 30400 37, H ONO RAB LE JULIE H. K OCUREK , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Kevin Ar cene aux seeks to appea l from a judgment of con v iction for ag gravated se xua l a ssa

ult . T he tr ia l c ourt

ha s c e rt if ie d, and the re c or d c on fi rm s, tha

t th is i s a ple a ba rg a in c a se and Ar cene aux has no right of appea l. SeeTex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2). The appea l is dism issed. See id . rule 25.2(d) .

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: De cembe r 9, 2004 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                           SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Microvision, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)  the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements and
   of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)   the information contained in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/ALEXANDER Y. TOKMAN
    Alexander Y. Tokman
    Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 10, 2010

---