alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SARYANA JUNIWATY,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70475

Agency No. A099-403-111

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Saryana Juniwaty, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JUL 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-70475

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse

credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590

F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Under the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence supports the

agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the discrepancies between

Juniwaty’s declaration, testimony, and her supporting documentation regarding the

chronology of harms she claims to have suffered in Indonesia. See Shrestha, 590

F.3d at 1046-47. Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Juniwaty’s asylum and

withholding of removal claims. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th

Cir. 2003).

Because Juniwaty’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency

found not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more likely

than not she will be tortured if returned to Indonesia, her CAT claim also fails. See

id. at 1156-57. 

Finally, we reject Juniwaty’s contention that the agency violated her due

process rights by not reaching the merits of her claim. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 
3 10-70475

1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due

process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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 

Ionizing Radiation: X- and Gamma Rays, Charged particles, Measurements 

of Radioactivity, and Neutron Measurements 

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 requirement 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: 02 December 2021

Expiration date: 02 December 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MOHAN KRISHNAN AND 

VASANTHALLAZMI KRISHNAN,

Petitioners

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY AS TRUSTEE,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 35 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Cybersecurity 

Competitions 

Cybersecurity competitions are interactive, scenario 

based events or exercises, either in person or virtual, 

where individuals or teams engage in cybersecurity 

activities. These activities include methods, practices, 

strategy, policy and ethics. Competitions encourage 

players to practice, hone cybersecurity skills, and build 

confdence in a controlled, real-world environment. 

They are available for all ages and levels, from as young 

as elementary school to those considered experts in 

the feld. Achievements may be measured and evaluated against a large field of competitors. While they are 

not the only method for educating, developing skills, 

and measuring performance, cybersecurity competitions play an integral role in stimulating interest at all 

levels in the field and developing a pipeline of resources to fill cybersecurity roles. 

Local, state, regional, national, and international 

competitions can be found today in a variety of formats 

ranging from face-to-face, virtual, or a combination of 

both. Numerous major competitions, including the 

National Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition, CyberPatriot, National Cyber League, and US Cyber Challenge, hold virtual qualifier rounds, while some even 

organize the final competitions in person. These events 

may vary in duration, spanning from a single day to a 

sequence of events throughout the year. 

Cybersecurity Competitions may have di ̃erent 

areas of focus including: 

Secure Coding System Administration 

Cybersecurity Policy Web Application Exploitation 

Cryptography Reverse Engineering 

Forensics Incident Response 

Malware Detection Network Tra ̃ic Analysis 

Social Engineering And More...! 

System Hardening 

Description: Athlete at the International Cybersecurity Competition 

Photo Credit: US Cyber Games 

1,2,3 Cybersecurity Competitions have proven to : 

Encourage ethical practice and skill development in a controlled, legal environment 

Present authentic circumstances where 

students can apply theory and protocol 

skills learned in formal educational environments 

Provide access to mentoring, resources, and 

potential employers 

Provide access to scholarships, internships, 

and job opportunities 

O ̃er an opportunity to identify talent 

Contribute to the knowledge-base of practitioners to resolve current issues, develop 

new tools, technologies, and methodologies 

Provide anytime-anywhere learning opportunities for individuals (from middle school 

to college and on to professionals and 

career changers) 

Contribute to curriculum and educator 

capacity to meet employer and national 

security needs 

Increase on-going knowledge of the work of 

cybersecurity professionals 

 ̃° ̨° ̋ ̇ˆ° ̨ ̋ˇ ̆ˆ° ̇ ̋ ̇ˆ ̇ ̇
 ̋ ̇ ̋ 
 ̨
° ̋
 ̇	° ̨ ̇ ̋° ̋°ˆ ̇
ˆ° ̋
 ̇ ̇ˆ ̋ ̨ ̋ˇ

1 ̃°° ̨ ̋ ̇ˆˆˇˇˇ ̆ ̋ ̆ˆ ̋ ̋°ˆ
 ̋ˆ 
ˆ
 ̋	ˆ
 ̋	 ̆ ̨
 2 ̃°° ̨ ̋ ̇ˆˆˇˇˇ ̆ ̋ ̆ˆ ̋ ̋°ˆ
 ̋ˆ 
ˆ
 ̋	ˆ
 ̋	 ̆ ̨
 3 ̃°° ̨ ̋ ̇ˆˆˇˇˇ ̆ ̋ ̆ˆ ̋ ̋°ˆ
 ̋ˆ 
ˆ
 ̋	ˆ
 ̋	 ̋ ̆ ̨


nist.gov/nice

updated August 2023 

C
Exhibit 12
                                                                                
                                                                                
                         MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                        
                              (Dollars in Millions)
                                        
                                    1997      1996      1995      1994      1993
                                    ----      ----      ----      ----      ----


1. EARNINGS

 a) Income before interest expense,
    income tax, extraordinary
    item and undistributed
    equity earnings (3)......  $1,050.3  $1,002.8  $  863.1  $  477.3  $  584.2
    
 b) Single Business Tax (2)..      20.5      31.4      26.2      28.3      27.6

 c) Portion of rental expense
    representative of the
    interest factor (1) (2)..      12.5      12.2      13.1      11.8      13.5
                               --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
     Total 1(a) through 1(c).  $1,083.3  $1,046.4  $  902.4  $  517.4  $  625.3
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========
2. FIXED CHARGES

 a) Total interest expense
    including capital
    lease obligations........  $   82.9  $   85.1  $   90.3  $   97.1  $  104.8
    
 b) Capitalized interest.....       1.3       1.9       1.7       1.5       1.4

 c) Portion of rental expense
    representative of the
    interest factor (1)......      12.5      12.2      13.1      11.8      13.5
                               --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
     Total 2(a) through 2(c).  $   96.7  $   99.2  $  105.1  $  110.4  $  119.7
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
FIXED CHARGES.................    11.20     10.55      8.59      4.69      5.22
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========

(1)  One-third of rental expense is considered to be the amount representing
     return on capital.
     
(2)  Earnings are income before income taxes and fixed charges.  Since the
     Single Business Tax (the Tax) and rental expense have already been
     deducted, the Tax and the one-third portion of rental expense considered
     to be fixed charges are added back.
     
(3)  The results for 1995 reflect a $64.9 million pretax credit primarily
     from settlement gains resulting from lump sum pension payments from the
     pension plan to former employees who left the business in the
     nonmanagement work force restructuring.  Results for 1994 reflect a
     $174.4 million pretax charge associated with the nonmanagement work
     force restructuring.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM WORLDCOM,
INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         273,504
<SECURITIES>                                    25,159
<RECEIVABLES>                                  656,774
<ALLOWANCES>                                    61,363
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,035,990
<PP&E>                                       2,267,824
<DEPRECIATION>                                 536,468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,266,077
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,136,026
<BONDS>                                      2,492,886
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          106,481
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,981
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,284,097
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,266,077
<SALES>                                      1,040,194
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,040,194
<CGS>                                          565,038
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  849,458
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,477)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                13,529
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,883
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                134,330
<INCOME-TAX>                                    54,663
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             79,667
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    79,162
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE  COMMISSION FORM 10K OF COX  TECHNOLOGIES,  INC. FOR THE
YEAR ENDED APRIL 30, 2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,225,192
<SECURITIES>                                   300,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,627,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                    28,524
<INVENTORY>                                  1,625,615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,806,469
<PP&E>                                       5,406,760
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,368,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,719,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,399,365
<BONDS>                                      2,928,359
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,868,467
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,476,949)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,719,242
<SALES>                                      9,710,976
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,710,976
<CGS>                                        5,277,651
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,716,454
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,028
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             170,263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,210,769)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    41,754
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,005,478)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,252,523)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
Order entered July 13 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00337
- CV
IN RE JAMES MEEHAN , BODMD MEDICAL GROUP (OK), P.C. AND

CATALYST UTICA, P.C., Relators Orig in al proceeding from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380
- 06699
- 2018

O RDER Before Justices Myers, Partida

- Kipness, and Carlyle Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED without prejudice to filing a pet it ion tha t complies with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Are you involved in cybersecurity workforce education or training (e.g., curriculum-based programs)?

I have been involved with cybersecurity education since the past 12 years. I developed an IT Security 

undergraduate program at St Cloud State University in the College of Science and Engineering, and 

restructured the program into a Cybersecurity program last year based on NIST NICE workforce 

framework KSAs. I was also instrumental in creating an Information Assurance graduate program in 

collaboration with SCSU’s School of Business. I am the PI for NSF’s CyberCorps: SFS grant, and hosted 

two GenCyber summer camps in 2015 and 2016.
10560.

#### Patterson *v.*The State.

Luke, J.

1. A substance made of corn meal and molasses, designed for the purpose of, and to be used for, distilling whisky, and commonly called “still beer,” or simply “beer,” which is alcoholic and will produce intoxication if drunk to excess, and which is in such a physical *240state that it can be and. actually is drunk as a beverage (and where similar substances have been drunk), is a beverage in the sense in which the latter term is used in the act approved March 28, 1917, making it an offense against the criminal laws of this State for any person to “distill, manufacture or make any alcoholic, spirituous, vinous, malted or mixed liquors or beverages, any part of which is alcoholic.” Pamph. Act, Ex. Sess. 1917, see. 23, p. 18. Evidence, therefore, that the defendant made a substance or liquid as above described (though not an ordinary “beverage”) is sufficient to authorize his conviction of the offense of making alcoholic liquors in violation of that act, under an indictment generally chai’ging a violation of all the offenses prohibited by the act.

Decided October 9, 1919.

Indictment for manufacture of intoxicating liquor; from Gwinnett superior court—Judge Cobb. February 13, 1919.

*M. D. Irwin, T. J. Shackelford,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. 0. Bean, solicitor-general,*contra.

2. Evidence that the defendant had escaped from jail, where he had been confined awaiting trial on the charge for which he was being tried, is sufficient to authorize the judge to charge the jury the rule of law governing the weight to be given evidence of flight on the part of the defendant as tending to establish his guilt.

3. The charge of the court is not subject to the objection that it contained any expression or intimation of opinion as to what had been proved, or that it did not fairly submit to the jury the contention of the defendant.

4. The court fully and properly instructed the jury upon the subject of reasonable doubt, and the instruction thereon set out in the motion for a new trial was not error for the reason assigned.

5. The grounds of the motion for a new trial not argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are treated as abandoned.

6. None of the excerpts from the charge of the court complained of required a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Broyles, *G. J., and Bloodworlh, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>    1

<S>                                           <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-mos
<CASH>                                            909,780
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     109,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,034,918
<PP&E>                                          8,482,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,456,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  7,000,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             472,427
<BONDS>                                         4,130,860
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                      1,645,654
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    7,000,721
<SALES>                                           613,740
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  631,558
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     418,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  221,736
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                176,987
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (125,827)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (125,827)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (125,827)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0


</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Deloitte Consulting LLP, Deloitte &

Touche LLP, and Deloitte Financial

Advisory Services LLP )

)

) ASBCA No. 6 3395

)

Under Contract Nos. N00039

- 15

- C

- 0057

FA2550

- 17

- C

- 8006 )

)

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Thomas A. Lemmer, Esq.

Phillip R. Seckman, Esq.

Jessica R. Chao, Esq.

Dentons US LLP

Denver, CO

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Samuel W. Morris, Esq.

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Peter M. Casey, Esq.

Evan Georgopoulos, Esq.

Trial Attorneys

Defense Contract Management Agency

Hanscom Air Force Base, MA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: August 2 2 , 2023

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals2 I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63 395

, Appeal of Deloitte Consulting

LLP, Deloitte & Touche LLP, and Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP , rendered in

conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: August 22, 2023

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Exhibit 32

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Qwest Corporation (Qwest),
that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of Qwest on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Qwest. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed
original of this statement has been provided to Qwest and will be retained by Qwest and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                                          
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Dated: February 8, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    RICHARD C.
NOTEBAERT              
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Richard C. Notebaert                     
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President    
|                        |  |  | 
|Dated: February 8, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    OREN G. SHAFFER                   
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Oren G. Shaffer                          
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer