alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification ofChief Financial Officer of GFI Group Inc.Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of GFI Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James A. Peers, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

1.     The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Date: March 1, 2007 |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
| /s/ James A. Peers       |   |   |
| James A. Peers           |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer  |   |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                              43,533 
<SECURITIES>                                     1,925,809 
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0 
<INVENTORY>                                              0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,984,571 
<PP&E>                                                   0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,984,571 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               78,901 
<BONDS>                                                  0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,895,200 
<PREFERRED>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                            23,241 
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,012,771) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,984,571 
<SALES>                                                  0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0 
<CGS>                                                    0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    82,467 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    6002 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (24,376) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       (24,376) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.01) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.01) 
                                               


</TABLE>
| TSR Rank | Perf. Level | Payout % |
|----------|-------------|----------|
| 1        |        | 200%     |
| 2        |        | 200%     |
| 3        |        | 200%     |
| 4        | Superior    | 200%     |
| 5        |        | 190%     |
| 6        |        | 180%     |
| 7        |        | 170%     |
| 8        |        | 160%     |
| 9        |        | 150%     |
| 10       |        | 140%     |
| 11       |        | 130%     |
| 12       |        | 120%     |
| 13       |        | 110%     |
| 14       | Target      | 100%     |
| 15       |        | 90%      |
| 16       |        | 80%      |
| 17       |        | 70%      |
| 18       |        | 60%      |
| 19       | Threshold   | 50%      |
| 20       |        | 0%       |
| 21       |        | 0%       |
| 22       |        | 0%       |
| 23       |        | 0%       |
| 24       |        | 0%       |
| 25       |        | 0%       |
| 26       |        | 0%       |
| 27       |        | 0%       |
| 28       |        | 0%       |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSEPH OLINSKY, III,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 174 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of January, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
NIST PSCR RESEARCH INVESTMENTS BOLSTER 

MICHIGAN’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. 

2 Prize Challenge 

Participants 7 Grant Awards 

•	 RIIS LLC 

•	 Culture Catalyst LLC 

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

Awards Totaling 

$0.02 Million 

MICHIGAN BY THE NUMBERS 

NIST INVESTMENT 

$5.5 Million 

OUTPUT 

$11.4 Million 

VALUE-ADDED 

$17.7 Million 

EARNINGS 

$10.8 Million 

JOBS 

158 

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 

Totaling $5.5 Million earnings in the U.S. economy 

generated by PSCR’s R&D •	 Voxel51 LLC 

investments •	 Regents of the 

University of Michigan Jobs: the change in the number of 

(2 awards) full- and part-time jobs generated 

•	 Michigan Technological by each one million dollar change 

University (2 awards) 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.
www.nsrl.nist.gov

NIST’s

National Software Reference Library

Douglas White,

Software Diagnostics &

Conformance Testing Division
www.nsrl.nist.gov

Agenda

• Project background

• Mathematical hashes

• Law enforcement application

• NARA Presidential research

• Ongoing research
www.nsrl.nist.gov

Project Background

• Collection is software application files

• Metadata database covers 45M files

• Metadata is publicly available

• Database schema, field descriptions
www.nsrl.nist.gov

Project Background

• Files recursively harvested from media

• 5.25 FD, 3.5 FD, CD, DVD

• 4TB of data

• 12GB of metadata

• Mathematical hashes are the focus

– SHA-1, MD5, MD4, CRC32
www.nsrl.nist.gov

Mathematical Hashes

• Like a person’s fingerprint

• Uniquely identifies file based on contents

• Primary hash value used is Secure Hash

Algorithm (SHA-1) specified in FIPS 180, a

160-bit algorithm

– 1045 combinations
www.nsrl.nist.gov

Mathematical Hashes

• “Computationally infeasible” to find two different files

less than 264 bits in size producing same SHA-1

– 264 bits is one million Terabytes

• August 2004, CRYPTO conference

– MD5 collision : specific initial values

– SHA-0 collision : 80,000 CPU hours

– SHA-1 collision : through 50 of 80 rounds

– NOT pre-image attacks

• SHA-256 supercedes SHA-1 in 2010
www.nsrl.nist.gov

Law Enforcement Application

• Automated elimination of benign

application files from investigation

• Positive identification of “interesting” files

• Forensic tools use various metadata

• NIST provides unbiased court-admissible

data to NIJ, FBI, DoD
www.nsrl.nist.gov

NARA Presidential Research

• 93 subject computers

• 51,146 files totalling 2.3GB

• 11,118 unique files, 78% duplicate

• 8,077 files identified by SHA-1 (72%)
www.nsrl.nist.gov

NARA Presidential Research

• 469 identical temporary installation files

• 161 zero-byte empty files

• 130 identical WordPerfect icon files

• Twenty other files have 90+ instances
www.nsrl.nist.gov

NARA Presidential Research

• Possible to generate a “baseline” computer

system

• Possible to obtain pedigree of operating

system upgrades

• Possible to apply installed application

metadata for further identification
www.nsrl.nist.gov

Ongoing Research

• On-line archive of data

– 2004 = 4TB, 2007 = 50TB

– Apply new algorithms to collection

• Identification of file types

– Over 3,500 identifiable

– Reference data set of content files
www.nsrl.nist.gov

Ongoing Research

• Metadata collection

– Higher level of automation

– Finer grain than file objects

– Ad-hoc cluster of commodity hardware

• User access
www.nsrl.nist.gov

Further Information

• Visit www.nsrl.nist.gov

• Email nsrl@nist.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4352 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4352

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny a deduction for the 
 portion of employer-provided vacation flights in excess of the amount 
       of such flights which is treated as employee compensation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2004

 Mr. Emanuel (for himself, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lantos, Mr. 
McGovern, Mr. Israel, Mr. Stark, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, 
Mr. Grijalva, and Ms. DeLauro) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny a deduction for the 
 portion of employer-provided vacation flights in excess of the amount 
       of such flights which is treated as employee compensation.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Corporate Jet Tax Shelter Reform Act 
of 2004''.

SEC. 2. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR EMPLOYER-PROVIDED VACATION FLIGHTS IN 
              EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH FLIGHTS TREATED AS EMPLOYEE 
              COMPENSATION.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 274(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenses treated as compensation) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``The amount allowable as a 
deduction by reason of this paragraph with respect to an aircraft 
provided by the taxpayer shall not exceed the expenses for goods, 
services, and facilities relating to such aircraft which are treated as 
such compensation and wages.''.
    (b) Reduction in Public Debt.--The increase in Federal receipts in 
the United States Treasury by reason of the amendment made by 
subsection (a) shall be used solely for reduction of the public debt, 
and for such purpose the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit an 
amount equal to such receipts in the account specified in section 
3113(d) of title 31, United States Code.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to expenses incurred after the date of the enactment of this Act 
in taxable years ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-37576 and 333-37582) of
our report dated September 8, 2006, except for the third paragraph of Note 11 as to which the date is September 26, 2006,
 relating to the consolidated financial statements of
DRYCLEAN USA, Inc. appearing in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2006.

MORRISON, BROWN ARGIZ & FARRA
LLP

Miami, FloridaSeptember
26, 2006
#### J. H. Bell *v.*W. L. Mitcheson.

Appeal — Erroneous Admission of Evidence — Presumption.

The erroneous admission of evidence of claims which appear to have been excluded in a prior settlement, is not ground for reversal, 'as it must he presumed that the court in making up his judgment did not -consider the incompetent testimony.

.Witnesses — Correction of Testimony by Witness.

A witness who avows his mistake- in giving testimony should he •allowed an opportunity to correct it.

APPEAL PROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

October 4, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsx\y:

The receipt of Bell of date June 5th, 1869, together with the statements in Mitcheson’s original answer imply a settlement of subsisting accounts up to that date, and we are inclined to the opinion that under the pleadings it was error to hear proof as to- claims held by Mitcheson against Bell prior to that date. Upon this error alone, however, this court would not reverse, as we must presume the .circuit judge, in making up his judgment, did not consider this irrelevant and incompetent testimony.

We are of opinion, however, that a new trial should have been granted upon the ground of newly discovered testimony. It is true that the newly discovered testimony is in one sense cumulative, but it is also true that it goes to the gist of the action and corrects (not contradicts) the statements of one of appellee’s own witnesses, *149which doubtless exercised a controlling influence with the court. Appellant is in no sense responsible for the want of recollection upon the-part of appellee’s witness and it seems to us unreasonable that the witness who avows his mistake shall not have an opportunity to correct it, and much more so that the party who suffered from the mistake, shall be precluded by a misfortune against which it is impossible for him to provide. For the error in refusing a new trial the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proper proceedings.

*T. E. Cnibeber, for appellant.*

*Sweeney, Stuart, for appellee.*
Exhibit 10.1


 


	
  Named Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  2006
  Base Salary

  	
   

  	
  2006
  Bonus Target

  	
   

  
	
  Henri A. Termeer

  Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,433,250

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,700,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Earl M. Collier, Jr.

  Executive Vice President

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  515,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  425,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Georges Gemayel

  Executive Vice President

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  468,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  425,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Peter Wirth

  Executive Vice President;
  Chief Legal Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  676,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  425,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Michael S. Wyzga

  Executive Vice President;
  Chief Financial Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  468,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  425,000
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR; ASLBP No. 10-900-01-LR-BD01]

      ( print page 72708)    
                    Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.313(c) and 2.321(b), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the above-captioned                     *Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1and 2*                     license renewal proceeding is hereby reconstituted by appointing Administrative Judge Paul S. Ryerson to serve as Chairman in place of Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin.                

                    All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall continue to be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule.                     *See*10 CFR 2.302*et seq.*

 Issued at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day of December 2014.

E. Roy Hawkens,

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.

[FR Doc. 2014-28707 Filed 12-5-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72706-72707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28683]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

Information Security Oversight Office

[NARA-2015-015]


State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Policy Advisory 
Committee (SLTPS-PAC)

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. app 2) and implementing

[[Page 72707]]

regulation 41 CFR 101-6, NARA announces the following committee 
meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on January 28, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 
12:00 p.m. EDT.

ADDRESSES: National Archives and Records Administration, 700 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Jefferson Room, Washington, DC 20408.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Skwirot, Senior Program 
Analyst, by mail at ISOO, National Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20408, by telephone number at (202) 357-
5398, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fa8895989f888ed489918d9388958eba949b889bd49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e89a878a8d9a9cc69b839f819a879ca886899a89c68f879e">[email protected]</span></a>. Contact ISOO at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#337a607c7c735d5241521d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e6afb5a9a9a688879487c8818990">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to discuss 
matters relating to the Classified National Security Information 
Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities. The 
meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations 
and access procedures, you must submit the name and telephone number of 
individuals planning to attend to the Information Security Oversight 
Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, January 23, 2015. ISOO will provide 
additional instructions for accessing the meeting's location.

    Dated: December 2, 2014.
Patrice Little Murray,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-28683 Filed 12-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STACIE MARIE GRAY f/k/a, 2 STACIE MARIE SANDOVAL, n/k/a 3 STACIE MARIE IVEY, 4 Plaintiff-Appellant, 5

v. NO. 33,348 consolidated 6 with NO. 33,670 7 MARTIN CHRISTOPHER SANDOVAL, 8 Defendant-Appellee. 9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 10 Elizabeth E. Whitefield, District Judge 11 Stacie Marie Gray 12 Fort Collins, CO 13 Pro Se Appellant 14 Leslie Becker 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellee 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 ZAMORA, Judge. 192 {1} Appellant Stacie Marie Ivey [RP 300] (M other) appeals pro se from the district 1 court’s October 4, 2013, minute order [RP 370] and the February 17, 2014, final 2 minute order [Ct.App.File, blue tab] thataddress matters relating to child support, 3 travel expenses, and attorney fees. Ou r second calendar notice proposed to affirm. {2} 4 Mother did not file a second memorandum in opposition to the second notice. 5 Instead, Mother initiated a second appeal and filed a docketing statement in this Court 6 in Ct.App.No. 33,670 (Case #2), where she app eals from the same district court orders 7 at issue in this case. Becau se Mother is appealing from the same orders in both this 8 case and in Case #2, we HEREBY CONSOLIDATE the appeals under this case, 9 Ct.App.No. 33,348. 10 {3} As for the merits of Mother’s argumen ts, for the same reasons extensively 11 discussed in our second calendar notice, we affirm. Mother did not file a 12 memorandum in opposition to our second no tice and we are notpersuaded by her 13 arguments. We therefore affirm. 14 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

_______________________________ 16 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 17 WE CONCUR: 183 ___________________________________ 1 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 2

___________________________________ 3 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 4