alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NIST-1260

(REV. 4-2010)

ADMAN 5.14 ADMAN 14.03

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

REPORT OF FOREIGN VISITOR(S), GUEST(S), CONFERENCE ATTENDEE(S)

REQUIRED FOR ALL FOREIGN VISITORS/GUESTS -- 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR VISITORS AND CONFERENCE ATTENDEES 

(SEND ORIGINAL TO OIAA) --30 DAYS IN ADVANCE FOR GUESTS (SEND ORIGINAL TO OSY, COPY TO OIAA)*

Administration Forms

CITIZENSHIP COUNTRIES OF DUAL CITIZENSHIP (If applicable)

NIST HOST(S) (Name, extension, e-mail) ORGANIZATIONAL CODE NUMBER

REASON FOR VISIT OR TITLE OF LECTURE(S)

ROOMS/BUILDINGS TO BE UTILIZED

REPORT PREPARED BY TELEPHONE EXTENSION DATE

FOLLOWING REQUIRED FOR LECTURERS ONLY (including signatures)

LECTURERS ONLY - GIVE BRIEF BIOGRAPHY

DIVISION CHIEF (NAME AND SIGNATURE) OU APPROVAL (NAME AND SIGNATURE)

RESPONSIBLE TECHNICAL STAFF MEMBER TELEPHONE EXTENSION ORGANIZATIONAL CODE NUMBER DATE

LECTURE FEE TRAVEL PER DIEM

$ $$

APPROVED - OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AND ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (NAME AND SIGNATURE) DATE

FULL NAME

First Middle

DATE OF BIRTH

Last Month Day Year

PLACE OF BIRTH PASSPORT

City Country Issuing Country

TITLE/POSITION GENDER Male Female

EMPLOYER/SPONSOR TELEPHONE

ADDRESS

DATE(S) OF VISIT

COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE

Number

VISITOR (3 days or less) GUEST (more than 3 days)

*BOULDER DISTRIBUTION: Original to Security; Copy to Group and OIAA (Mail Stop 1090)

CONFERENCE ATTENDEE (5 days or less)

U. S. PERMANENT RESIDENT YES NO
Opinion issued August 30, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00579-CV

———————————

BENJAMIN CHARLES SIMISKEY, Appellant

V.

AMY CHRISTINE LLOYD, Appellee

On Appeal from the 505th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 09-DCV-168882

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Benjamin Charles Simiskey, has neither paid the required fees nor 

established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; 

see also TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041; Fees Charged in the 

Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial 
2

Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). 

After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not 

adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c). Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for nonpayment of all required fees. We dismiss any pending motions as 

moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Caughey.
Clare A

A

Director, External Needs Asses

October 14, 

Clare.allocca301-975-435
` Motivation: NIST requires external input 

NIST requires external input 

support strategic decision making 

◦ Earlier /broader involvement of customers /st

x Future priorities and challenges 

x External drivers / opportunities 

x Context Context 

◦ NIST must ensure that its R&D portfolio is alig

address the most relevant measurement chall

` Approach: Implement a workshop / repo

mechanism to present priorities in the eyCustomers / Stakeholders Customers / Stakeholders 

Credible Identification of Stakeholder Nee
` Advancing Photovoltaics (May 11
 

x Draft workshop summary available: 

` Advancing Photovoltaics (May 11-12 2010) , 2010) 

http://events.energetics.com/NISTGrandChallenges2

x O t iti D t t t d f O t 29 20

Opportunities Document targeted for Oct 29, 20

` Greenhouse Gas Emissions Quantification (June 

x Draft workshop summary is available: 

http://events.energetics.com/NISTScripps2010/ 

x Opportunities Document targeted for Nov 16 Opportunities Document targeted for Nov 16, 2

` Advanced Battery & Energy Storage Technology 

x Draft workshop report targeted for late October 

http://events.energetics.com/NISTAdvancedBatterie

x Meeting with other stakeholders to get addition

Meeting with other stakeholders to get addition
`

`	 Currently Exploring ~ 30 topics 

	 Criteria Criteria 

◦	 Potential importance to NIST
 

x Administration, DOC and NIST priorities
 x Unique ability of NIST to meet demand (mission) Unique ability of NIST to meet demand (mission) x Existing evidence of importance of measurement 

◦	 Potential importance to US / World (external trends) 

x VCAT 

x Studies / reports x Customer input 

◦	 Potential national impact 

x Potential impact of technology
 

x Economic
 x Level of innovation
 

x Exp ected value ( g /accounting of risks / uncertainties)
`

` Forensics 

Broadband communications Broadband communications 

` Advanced robotics ` Wind energy ` Electronic materials ` Manufacturing ` Your Ideas? 
`

` Release Photovoltaics Opportunities

Document (late October) 

` R l e ease GHG E i m ssions Q uantifi cation 

Opportunities Document (mid Novem

` Release Battery and Energy Storage Battery and Energy Storage

Technology Café Summary (late Octo

` Conduct 2 large workshops and 3 sm

Conduct 2 large workshops and 3 sm

workshops during FY11
Version 1.1 / Date of Issue: 2.09.16 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

OSAC RESEARCH NEEDS ASSESSMENT FORM

Title of research need: Study to Assess the Accuracy and Reliability of Firearm and Toolmark 

Examinations

Keyword(s): black box, toolmarks, validation, firearms, forensic science, error rate

Submitting subcommittee(s): Firearms and Toolmarks Date Approved:

(If SAC review identifies additional subcommittees, add them to the box above.)

Background Information:

1. Description of research need:

Studies designed to assess examiner accuracy and reliability in source attribution-type conclusions (i.e. error 

rate studies).

2. Key bibliographic references relating to this research need:

Baldwin, D.P., Bajic, S.J., Morris, M., and Zamrow, D., "A Study of False-Positive and False-Negative Error

Rates in Cartridge Case Comparisons", Ames Laboratory, USDOE Technical Report #IS-5207, April 7, 2014.

Ulery BT, et al. “Accuracy and Reliability of Forensic Latent Print Decisions” 2011 108(19) pp. 7733-7738.

3a. In what ways would the research results improve current laboratory capabilities?

Error rate studies have the potential to provide laboratories with information on what types of errors occur, 

the frequency of errors and why they may occur. This can help shape laboratory quality programs in order 

to help mitigate errors. 

3b. In what ways would the research results improve understanding of the scientific basis for the 

subcommittee(s)?

Numerous studies have been performed, however additional studies with different design will continue to 

provide the subcommittee with knowledge about errors. This data will help guide our work product 

regarding analytical, documentation and case review standards.

3c. In what ways would the research results improve services to the criminal justice system?
Version 1.1 / Date of Issue: 2.09.16 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

This research would provide additional data to help the justice system asses the overall error rate of the 

firearm and toolmark discipline and fulfill one the Daubert criteria (error rate).

4. Status assessment (I, II, III, or IV): IV Major gap in 

current 

knowledge

Minor gap in 

current 

knowledge

No or limited

current research 

is being conducted

I III

Existing current 

research is being 

conducted

II IV

This research need has been identified by one or more subcommittees of OSAC and is being provided as an 

informational resource to the community.

Approvals:

Subcommittee Approval date: 5/4/2018

(Approval is by majority vote of subcommittee. Once approved, forward to SAC.)

SAC

1. Does the SAC agree with the research need? Yes x No

2. Does the SAC agree with the status assessment? Yes x No

If no, what is the status assessment of the SAC:

Approval date: 5/4/2018

(Approval is by majority vote of SAC. Once approved, forward to NIST for posting.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                      1,137,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,137,919
<CGS>                                           36,498
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,498
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,101,434
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (13)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (13)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1067
RACHAEL G. ROGERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-94-161-4-BO) Submitted: October 31, 1996 Decided: November 18, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas B. Brandon, III, Williamston, North Carolina, for Appellant. Raymond E. Dunn, Jr., Andrew D. Jones, DUNN, DUNN, & STOLLER, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Rachael G. Rogerson appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in her diversity slip-andfall claim. We affirm. Rogerson contends that the district court improperly excluded an affidavit tending to show that the alleged dangerous condition resulting in her accident was a common result of the Defendant's cleaning pr ocedures. We find that even if this affidavit were admitted it demonstrates only that if the condition existed it may have been created by the Defendant's negligence. There is, however, no evidence that the alleged dangerous condition actually existed prior to Rogerson's fall. Accor dingly, because Rogerson cannot prove its existence, she cannot prove that it was created by the Defendant's negligence or that the Defendant failed to correct the condition after actual or constructive notice of its existence. See France v. Winn-Dixie Supermarket, Inc. , 320 S.E.2d 25, 25 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984), review denied , 327 S.E.2d 889 (N.C. 1985) (providing standard). We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00356-CV

Emily A. Rudicel

v.

Emanuel S. Music

§

§

§

§

From the 352nd District Court

of Tarrant County (352-262344-12)

January 22, 2015

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHRISTY LLOYD, 1 Respondent Below, Appellant,

v. KASEY JEFFERS, Petitioner Below, Appellee. § § § No. 39, 2019 § § Court Below: Family Court § of the State of Delaware § § File No. CN16-03944 § Petition No. 18-29145 § § § § Submitted: March 28, 2019 Decided: April 1, 2019

ORDER The appellant filed a notice of appeal on January 25, 2019. Instead of paying the filing fee, she submitted with her notice of appeal a motion to proceed in forma pauperis , but the motion did not contain all th e required information. On January 28, 2019, the Senior Court Clerk sent the a ppellant a letter enclosing the incomplete motion and directing her to return the co mpleted motion no later than February 12, 2019, or a notice to show cause would i ssue. On February 19, 2019, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice to the appellan t to show cause why the appeal should

not be dismissed because of her failure to diligently prosecute the appeal by filing

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).2 the completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis . The appellant failed to respond

to the notice to show cause within the re quired ten-day period; therefore, dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the ap peal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
10819.

#### Thomas *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for manufacture of intoxicating liquor; from Bibb superior court—Judge Mathews. July 12, 1919.

*John B. Cooper, W. 0. Cooper Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*John P. Boss, solicitor-general,*contra.

Beoyles, C. J.

1. One who is present at a distillery when whisky is being manufactured, and who personally assists in the manufacture, is guilty of manufacturing whisky; and it is immaterial whether or not he owns the distillery, or whether or not he is hired to work thereat.

2. There is no substantial merit in any of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial; the defendant’s conviction was authorized by the evidence; and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
#### Porter Jett et al. *v.*Elijah Jett et al.

Vendor and Purchaser — Contract Between Father and Son.

The evidence was held insufficient to show the existence of a contract between a father and son so as to divest third parties of their title to the land in question.

APPEAL FROM BRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

February 6, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

We concur in the opinion rendered by the court below that there is no such evidence of the existence of a contract between the *484father and son, as would authorize the chancellor to divest the appellees of their title to the land in controversy. A contract in parol is alleged to have been made in the year 1858, by which the father disposed of nearly the whole of his estate *to*the appellants, with the power in the latter to distribute what may be left, *or*the amount with which he is to be charged, viz: two thousand dollars, between his other children, the evidence offered in support of it, conducing rather to create a nuncupative will than a contract, but falling far short of making it either. The declarations of the father made at various times from 1858 up to his death, to his neighbors, as to the disposition he had made of his land and what he intended to do for his son, are relied on as sufficient to defeat the claim of the appellees, and sustain the alleged contract. Such character of proof can scarcely be held as sufficient to deprive the administrator of the intestate of the most trifling article of personal estate. The whole testimony indicates that the son derived as much benefit from the use of the farm as the father did from his kindness and attention. This case evidences the necessity for requiring such contracts to be in writing.

*Wadsworth, B. G. Willis, for appellants.*

*J. Q. Ward, for appellees.*

Judgment affirmed.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 3, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

_______________ Nos. 3D18-2557 and 3D19-681 Lower Tribunal No. 14-17706

________________ American Sales and Management Organization LLC d/b/a Eulen America, Appellant/Appellee,
vs. Juan Carlos Alvarez 

### , Appellee/Appellant. Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Holland & Knight LLP, and Joseph J. Mamounas, Christopher N. Bellows, Anthony J. Sirven, and Manuel A. Miranda, for appellant/appellee. Avila Rodriguez Hernandez Mena & Ferri LLP, and Wilfredo A. Rodriguez and Marisol Vilasuso, for appellee/appellant. Before EMAS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,674
<SECURITIES>                                    12,980
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,671
<ALLOWANCES>                                       354
<INVENTORY>                                      4,766
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,645
<PP&E>                                           4,983
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,742
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           194
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,232
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,299
<SALES>                                         27,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,785
<CGS>                                           12,767
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,964
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    58
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (564)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (4)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (560)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             462
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (241)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          39,330
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,915)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         26,172
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,499
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,247
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,960
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   542
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    223
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                223
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       223
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50074

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JEFFREY ELDON DEAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-1189-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jeffrey Eldon Dean has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Dean has not filed a response. Our independent review of

the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
#### Hoefler & Stoecklein Co., Appellee, *v.*Martin et al., Appellants.

*52(No. 2050

Decided August 13, 1949.)

*Messrs. Shaman, Winer & Shulman,*for plaintiff appellee.

*Messrs. Estabrooh, Finn & McKee,*for defendant appellee.

*Mr. D. H. Wysong,*for appellants.

By the Court.

This cause is submitted on motions of plaintiff-appellee and defendant-appellee to dismiss the appeal on the ground that defendants-appellants failed to file a bill of exceptions, assignment of errors and brief within the time required by supplement to Rule VII of the Courts of. Appeals.

On May 24, 1949, this court dismissed the appeal on questions of law and fact and ordered the case retained for hearing on questions of law, and further-ordered that defendants-appellants be required to file their bill of exceptions, assignment of errors and brief within the time • prescribed by supplement to Rule VII.

The period of time prescribed in supplement to Rule VII having expired, and no bill of exceptions, assignment of errors and brief having been filed, the motion to dismiss the appeal is .sustained.

*Motion sustained.*

Miller, P. J., Hornbbck and Wiseman, JJ., concur..