alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCENARIO: 

The CEO of a government contracting firm was notified that an auction on the dark web was selling access 

to their firm’s business data, which included access to their military clients database. The CEO rapidly 

established the data being ‘sold’ was obsolete, and not tied to any government agency clients. How did 

this happen? The firm identified that a senior employee had downloaded a malicious email attachment, 

thinking it was from a trusted source.

ATTACK: 

A phishing attack where malware is in the attachment of the email.

A phishing attack is a form of social engineering by which cyber criminals attempt to trick individuals by creating and sending fake emails that appear to be 

from an authentic source, such as a business or colleague. The email might ask you to confirm personal account information such as a password or prompt 

you to open a malicious attachment that infects your computer with a virus or malware

RESPONSE:

The company’s IT management immediately shut off communications to the affected server and took the 

system offline to run cybersecurity scans of the network and identify any additional breaches. The firm’s 

leadership hired a reputable cybersecurity forensics firm. Each potentially impacted government agency 

was notified. The U.S. Secret Service assisted in the forensics investigation.

IMPACT: 

The operational and financial impact from the breach was extensive – costing more than $1 million: The 

company was offline for several days disrupting business; new security software licenses and a new server 

had to be set up.

LESSONS LEARNED:

1 You are never too small to be a target. A cyber attack can happen to anyone.

2 Teach staff about the dangers of clicking on unsolicited email links and attachments and 

 emphasize the need to stay alert for warning signs of fraudulent emails.

3 Install and regularly update anti-virus, network firewall, and information encryption tools to 

 scan for and counteract viruses and harmful programs.

4 Conduct ongoing vulnerability testing and risk assessments on computer networks. 

DISCUSS:

• Knowing how the firm responded, what would you have done differently? 

• What are some steps you think the firm could have taken to prevent this incident? 

• Is your business susceptible to this kind of attack? How are you going to reduce your risk?

RESOURCES:

• NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Corner: https://www.nist.gov/itl/smallbusinesscyber

• National Cybersecurity Alliance: https://staysafeonline.org/cybersecure-business/

A Dark Web of Issues for A Small Government Contractor 

Case

5

SMALL BUSINESS CYBERSECURITY CASE STUDY SERIES

This resource, funded through NIST Federal Award 70NANB19H165, is intended to be used for general education purposes. The content of the case studies is a combination of publicly available 

information, business-submitted information, and fictional details to create an educational scenario.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4537 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment Yellow 154. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2004 

Mr. LANGEVIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment 

Yellow 154. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PIGMENT YELLOW 154. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.32.18 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2002’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2006’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

9 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

10 January 1, 2003. 

Æ
----

----

|   | ALLTEL                NEW LICENSE SUB, LLC, |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|

|   |   | By:  /s/                  Holly L.                  Larkin                                  |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                      Name: Holly L. Larkin |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                      Title: Authorized Signatory |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | By: /s/                  Ross A. Mac                  Intyre                          |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                      Name: Ross A. Mac Intyre |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |       Title:                Vice President |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-27-2002

Askey v. Comm PA Dept Welfare

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 02-1721

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Askey v. Comm PA Dept Welfare" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 780.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/780
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-1721

 

JOHN W. ASKEY;

BARBARA ASKEY,

Appellants

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT

OF PUBLIC WELFARE

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 01-cv-000640)

District Judge: Honorable William L. Standish

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 21, 2002

Before: BARRY and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

DOWD*, District Judge

(Opinion filed : November 27, 2002)

 

OPINION

 

 

*Honorable David D. Dowd, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of

Ohio, sitting by designation.
2

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

The appellants, John and Barbara Askey, filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for

the Western District of Pennsylvania this adversary proceeding against the appellee, the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (“DPW”). The DPW filed a

motion to dismiss, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from the lawsuit. The

Bankruptcy Court granted the motion to dismiss on this ground, and the District Court affirmed. 

As those Courts recognized, this case is controlled by our decision in In re Sacred Heart Hosp.

of Norristown, 133 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 1998), and so we also affirm.

We further agree with the District Court’s conclusion that, because the Askeys did not

attempt in the Bankruptcy Court to amend their complaint to sue for prospective injunctive relief

from the Secretary of the DPW in his official capacity, they waived the Ex Parte Young, 209

U.S. 123 (1908), argument that they now seek to present.

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of this adversary proceeding.
3

 

TO THE CLERK:

Please file the foregoing Opinion.

By the Court,

 /s/ Thomas L. Ambro 

 Circuit Judge
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form S-8 (File Nos. 2-91432, 2-72124, 2-85698, 2-97280, 33-37319, 33-37323, 33-59005, 33-55613, 33-10801, 33-11790, 333-79227, 333-90127, 333-30918, and 333-103844), Form S-3 (File Nos. 2-84252, 33-9706, 33-22196, 33-47213,333-23025, and 333-80781) and Form S-4 (File Nos. 33-58117 and 33-48960) of Millipore Corporation of our report dated March 16, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 16, 2005
NIST PSCR RESEARCH INVESTMENTS BOLSTER 

MASSACHUSETTS’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. 

3 Prize Challenge 

Participants 

Awards Totaling 

$0.1 Million 

3 Grant Awards 

Totaling $3.2 Million 

•	 Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology 

•	 Valid8.com, Inc. 

•	 Pison Technology, Inc. 

MASSACHUSETTS BY THE NUMBERS 

NIST INVESTMENT 

$3.3 Million 

OUTPUT 

$7.0 Million 

VALUE-ADDED 

$8.9 Million 

EARNINGS 

$5.2 Million 

JOBS 

63 

Output: the total value of economic 

activity circulating through the U.S. 

economy generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Value-Added: how much the 

combined U.S. state economies 

grew over a period of time due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

Earnings: the change in household 

earnings in the U.S. economy 

generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Jobs: the change in the number of 

full- and part-time jobs generated 

by each one million dollar change 

in U.S. economic activity due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

*All dollar amounts presented 

in 2022 and reflect data as of 

October 2022.

**All values are rounded; thus, the 

sum of the components may not 

sum exactly to the NIST Investment 

amount.

For additional information of PSCR’s research programs, visit https://www.nist.gov/ctl/pscr.
#### T. C. Halsell et al. *v.*R. K. Morgan.

Bills and Notes — Venue of Action.

Where one takes an assignment of a note, knowing that the obligor was a non-resident, he undertakes to pursue his remedy where the debtor resides.

APPEAL PROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

October 1, 1873.

*H. J. Beauchamp, for appellants.*

*Ira Julian, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The answer in this case presents a defense to the cause of action. The assignor obtained this note, knowing that the obligor was a non-resident. He therefore undertook to pursue his remedy, or to exhaust it at least, in the state where the debtor lived. Such are the allegation's of the answer, and they must be taken as true. Brinker v. Perry, 5 Littell 194.

The petition is defective. It fails to allege the insolvency of the payor, and that he has no property in the state out of which the debt could be made. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to award the appellant a new trial and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
### PD-0245-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 4/28/2015 1:56:01 PM Accepted 4/29/2015 10:52:06 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK
EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in (1) the Registration Statement
on Form S-8, File No. 333-43837, (2) the Registration Statement on Form S-8,
File No. 333-43839, (3) the Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No.
333-72939 and (4) the Registration Statement on Form S-3, File No. 333-81037 of
our report dated February 20, 2002 on the consolidated financial statements of
Siebert Financial Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and
for the three-year period ended December 31, 2001 included in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K.


/s/ Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP
-------------------------------------
Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP

New York, New York
March 28, 2002
Test Methods for Evaluating Aerial Drones

Safety | Capabilities | Proficiency

RobotTestMethods.nist.gov

Rectangular stickers for bulk printing. 

Please see associated round stickers for details and instructions.

A

D

C

B 1

LAUNCH

AD

5

TRIM LINE FOR SIDE

INTERIOR/EXTERIOR

BUCKET STICKERS

 BUCKET INTERIOR 4 SIDES

GHT WITH THE BUCKET

s indicated. Justify to top of bucket.

1

5

TOP BUCKET INTERIOR 4 SIDES

UPRIGHT WITH THE BUCKET

Trim as indicated. Justify to top of bucket.

1 

ndard Test Methods for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

M International Standards Committee on Homeland Security Applications; 

Response Robots (E54.09) | Website: RobotTestMethods.nist.gov

TRIM LINE FOR SIDE

INTERIOR/EXTERIOR

BUCKET STICKERS

SCENARIO

(Black Buckets)

1

Standard Test Methods for Small Unmanned Aircraft Syste

ASTM International Standards Committee on Homeland Security Applicatio

Response Robots (E54.09) | Website: RobotTestMethods.nist.gov

Compiled SCENARIO

2020-06-25 10:06 (Black Buckets)

1
Test Methods for Evaluating Aerial Drones

Safety | Capabilities | Proficiency

RobotTestMethods.nist.gov

Rectangular stickers for bulk printing. 

Please see associated round stickers for details and instructions.

A

D

C

B 1

LAUNCH

AD

6

BUCKET STICKERS

TRIM LINE FOR SIDE

INTERIOR/EXTERIOR

BUCKET STICKERS

OP BUCKET NEAR EXTERIOR SIDE 

RIGHT WITH THE BUCKET POINTING TOWARDS LANDING

m as indicated. Justify to top of bucket.

A

7

TOP BUCKET LEFT EXTERIOR SIDE 

UPRIGHT WITH THE BUCKET

Trim as indicated. Justify to top of bucket.

B

andard Test Methods for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

TM International Standards Committee on Homeland Security Applications; 

Response Robots (E54.09) | Website: RobotTestMethods.nist.gov

TRIM LINE FOR SIDE

INTERIOR/EXTERIOR

BUCKET STICKERS

SCENARIO

(Black Buckets)

C

Standard Test Methods for Small Unmanned Aircraft System

ASTM International Standards Committee on Homeland Security Applications

Response Robots (E54.09) | Website: RobotTestMethods.nist.gov

Compiled SCENARIO

2020-06-25 10:06 (Black Buckets)

D
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.B


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2003, of ANR Pipeline Company (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Greg G.
Gruber, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer certify (i)
that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                                                 /s/ Greg G. Gruber
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Greg G. Gruber
                                       Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
                                       Officer and Treasurer
                                       (Principal Financial Officer)

                                       March 15, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ANR Pipeline Company and will be retained by ANR Pipeline Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 E0 08 2 . I N THE I NTEREST OF N. R. P., A CHI LD (MOTHER).

Kal ei g h Bu rn s Sm i t h h as fi l ed t h i s em erg en cy m o t i o n fo r an ex t en s i o n o f t i m e

t o fi le an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev iew p urs u an t t o Co urt o f A p p eal s Ru l es 1 6

(c), 3 1 (h ), an d 4 0 (b ). Th e m o ti o n h av i n g b een fi l ed i n acco rd an ce w i t h t h i s Co urt ’ s

ru l es

, we h ereb y GRANT Sm i t h an ex t en s io n of t i m e un t i l J ul y 3 1

, 2 0 24

, i n wh i ch to

fi le an ap p li cat i on fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f fi c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I c e r ti f y th a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i t n e s s m y s i g n a tu r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. July 18, 2024

07/18/2024
10704.

#### Pickett *v.*Brooke.

Decided January 6, 1920.

Complaint; from Milton superior court—Judge Morris. June 14, 1919,

Luke, J.

1. Any act of the creditor which injures the surety or increases his risk or exposes him to greater liability will discharge him. Under the evidence in this case the jury were authorized to find, and did find, that the creditor had, for a consideration, extended the time of payment of the note signed by the surety, and in addition thereto had calculated, and undertook to and did collect, usurious interest from the principal, and by reason of such payment did indulge the principal debtor and extend the payment of the note, all of which, according to the evidence, was without the knowledge or consent of the surety. See Civil Code (1910), § 3544; *Camp*v. *Howell,*37 *Ga.*312 (2).

2. The charge of the court, when read in its entirety, was full and fair and not subject to the criticisms urged against it. The verdict being supported by the evidence and having the approval of the trial judge, it was not error, for any reason assigned, to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., eoneur.*

*652Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

*G. B. Walker, E. W. Coleman,*for plaintiff.

*J. P. Brooke, George F. Gober, B. B. Bussell,*for defendant.
#### George Lee, etc., *v.*W. G. Alexander, etc.

Appeal — Reversal.

A judgment which, is substantially correct will not be reversed on appeal.

APPEAL PROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT.

October 7, 1873.

OPINION by

Judge Hardin :

Waiving the consideration of the merely legal questions in this case, particularly as to the competency of Miller as a witness for his co-defendant, the partial failure, at least, to sustain the alleged consideration of the sale to the appellants, and the fact as alleged by them that Griffin and Miller fraudulently procured the commissioner’s deed to be made to Miller instead of Griffin to defeat the creditors of the latter, we can not, in view.of all the facts and circumstances proved or admitted by the pleadings, avoid the conclusion to which the court below seems to have been led, that Miller in fraud of the rights of his wards, as well as his sureties to them', either invested their money in the land, or, in contemplation of his insolvency invested or paid his own money for it to such an amount, at least, as to authorize the judgment subjecting so much of the land as is necessary to satisfy the balance due his late wards including the note of Griffin and wife. Although the judgment does not in terms declare the conveyance to Mrs. Griffin either fraudulent as to the claims and equities of the several plaintiffs, nor strictly vol*154untary, yet we regard the relief adjudged, as substantially right, and such as might be sustained upon either of these grounds.

*James Caldwell, for appellant.*

*Van, Winkle, Dunlap, Russell, for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
#### Oliver P. Hibbard *v.*Barton Potter's Adm'r.

Fraudulent Conveyances — Subjecting Property to Payment of Debts.

Where land is purchased and paid for hy one, hut title is taken in the name of the purchaser’s son in order to place it beyond the reach of the purchaser’s creditors,, it may be subjected to creditors’ debts.

APPEAL PROM: CLAY CIRCUIT COURT.

June 18, 1873.

*James, for appellant.*

-, *for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

At the time of the conveyance of the land to O. P. Hibbard the evidence fails to show that he had the means to pay for it. It is proved by various witnesses that Hiram Hibbard said he had purchased and paid for the land; he lived on it and rented out a part of it, collected the rent, and there is also evidence of the statements of Mr. John Hibbard that he said that he had sold the land to his son Hiram' for four hundred dollars. And although the declarations of the "vendor, John Hibbard, after he had sold the land, and those of Hiram Hibbard might not have been competent evidence, still these declarations as proved by the witnesses were not objected to, and came here as evidence in the case, uncontradicted by anything but the deed from. John Hibbard to O. P. Hibbard, with tiie additional facts that Hiram- Hibbard occupied the land, claimed it, rented it, and subjected it to all the acts of co-partnership, while the other party contents himself with a mere denial that H. Hibbard paid for it without any effort to show that he had the means of payment, or that he ever exerted himself to make payment.

If it is admitted in the pleadings that Hiram Hibbard owed the debt to Potter sued on before the purchase and conveyance of the land it is not said or asserted that H. PIibbard had the land conveyed to his son by way of advancement to him;, evidence of the declarations of his vendor and H. Hibbard unobjected to show that the latter paid for the land and had it conveyed to his son under circumstances of a character necessarily indicating a design to withdraw it from- his creditors and subject the property to the payment of the debts of him who advanced the money which existed prior to the transaction.

Such is this case, and consequently the judgment must be affirmed,