alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NIST PSCR RESEARCH INVESTMENTS BOLSTER 

KENTUCKY’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. 

For additional information of PSCR’s research programs, visit . 

amount.

1 Prize Challenge 

Participant 

Awards Totaling 

$0.02 Million 

KENTUCKY BY THE NUMBERS 

NIST INVESTMENT 

$0.02 Million 

OUTPUT 

$0.3 Million 

VALUE-ADDED 

$0.1 Million 

EARNINGS 

$0.1 Million 

JOBS 

1 

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 

https://www.nist.gov/ctl/pscr
* 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. 01-50335

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER RUBEN PEREZ-RUELAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-00-CR-1493-ALL-H

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

October 23, 2001

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Ruben Perez-Ruelas (Perez) has appealed his

conviction, based on his guilty plea, of having unlawfully

reentered the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We

affirm.

Perez contends that he is entitled to reversal because, at

his rearraignment, the district court did not advise him (1) that

the court must consider any applicable guideline in determining

his sentence and (2) of the effect of the supervised-release term

which he would receive. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1). 
No. 01-50335

-2-

Perez is not entitled to reversal as a result of the

district court’s not advising him concerning the guidelines,

because the record shows that it did not affect his willingness

to plead guilty. See United States v. Vasquez-Bernal, 197 F.3d

169, 171 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1130 (2000).

The district court’s failure to explain the effect of a

supervised-release term was harmless error because the total of

the prison term and the supervised-release term which Perez

actually received, plus the maximum prison term he can receive if

his supervised release is revoked, is less than the maximum

prison term provided by law for the offense, which Perez had been

made aware of at rearraignment. See United States v. CuevasAndrade, 232 F.3d 440, 444 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S.

Ct. 1748 (2001).

AFFIRMED.
INDUSTRIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (IAC) MEETING

AGENDA

February 7th, 2023

Location: Virtual

MEETING GOALS:

• Provide an update on the CHIPS R&D program

• Receive recommendations from the IAC working groups

• Allow for IAC deliberation and discussion on recommendations

February 7, 2023

Time (ET) Topic Discussion Leader

10:00 am to 10:05 pm Call to Order 

Roll Call

Ben Davis

IAC Designated Federal Officer

NIST

Tamiko Ford

IAC Designated Federal Officer

NIST

10:05 am to 10:15 am Welcome 

Opening Remarks

Michael Splinter

IAC Chair

General Partner

MRS Business and Technology 

Advisors

Susan Feindt 

IAC Vice-Chair 

Fellow

Analog Devices Inc.

10:15 am to 10:35 am DOC Welcome Remarks Laurie Locascio

Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Standards and Technology

10:35 am to 11:05 am CHIPS R&D Update (Presentation) Eric Lin

Interim CHIPS R&D Director

NIST

11:05 am to 12:05 pm

R&D Gaps Working Group – Report Out 

and Discussion (Presentation)

Dan Armbrust

R&D Working Group Chair

Silicon Catalyst

12:05 pm to 12:35 pm

Break Ben Davis

 12:35 pm to 1:50 pm Organizational and PPP Working Group 

Report Out and Discussion (Presentation)

Deirdre Hanford

Organizational and Public & Private

Partnerships Working Group Chair

Synopsys

 1:50 pm to 2:35 pm

R&D Workforce Working Group Report 

Out and Discussion (Presentation)

Tsu-Jae King Liu

Workforce Working Group Chair

University of California Berkeley

 2:35 pm to 2:45 pm Public Comment Period Ben Davis

 2:45 pm to 3:00 pm Summary Remarks and Next Steps Laurie Locascio

 3:00 pm Adjourn Ben Davis
Exhibit
32 .1





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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Imagenetix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William P.
Spencer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





1)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and




2)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Dated:
      November 15, 2010
            s/WILLIAM P. SPENCERWilliam
      P. SpencerChief
      Executive Officer and President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0707

_________________

SCOTT AND PAMELA BYE; KOREY AND 

WENDY FAUQUE; BUTCH AND DOREEN 

GILLESPIE; WAYNE AND ROXY

GILLESPIE, and JOHN DOES 1, 2, 3, 4,

 Plaintiffs and Appellees

 v.

SOMONT OIL COMPANY, INC.

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and 

including May 3, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve the Reply Brief in this case.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 13 2023

04/13/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0707
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7356

ROBERT EUGENE INMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MARION

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT CENTER; TOM DOSS,

Medical Supervisor; ALFREDO RAYNAUD, Horna

Psychiatrist; COLIN C. J. ANGLIKER, Chief

Psychiatrist; MICHAEL KLEINOT, Psychologist;

J. W. ARMENTROUT, Assistant Warden; J. T.

HALL, Captain; ROBERT SERGEANT; NURSE CAROL;

JIM WARD, Food Manager; KENNETH OSBORNE,

Warden; JAMES D. HALL, Corrections Lieutenant;

RICHARD YOUNG, Regional Director; E. C.

MORRIS, Deputy Director; JAMES BRIGGS, Ombudsman Manager; P. J. RICH, Regional Ombudsman;

RON ANGELONE, Director Commissioner; INTERNAL

AFFAIRS, Marion Correctional Food Service,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JOHNNY RUSSELL, Inmate Hearings Officer;

CHARLES LINCOLN, Attorney; JOY EVANS, District

Attorney; JURY-APPEAL, The Jury at 2nd Commitment Appeal,

Defendants.
2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-97-502)

Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 20, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Eugene Inman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. Inman v. Virginia Dep't of Corr., No. CA-97-502

(W.D. Va. Sept. 17, 1997). We also deny Appellant's motions to

amend, for malicious prosecution, and for slander and false accusation. 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.

DISMISSED
NUMBER 13-13-00130-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

DAVID WOOD, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 319th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, David Wood, filed a notice of appeal from a conviction of assault. This 

cause is before the Court on the State’s motion for abatement and remand. The State 

indicates that the record fails to reflect a properly filed affidavit of indigency and that 

appellant may not be entitled to an appointed attorney on appeal. 
2

If appellant is indigent, he has a right to appointment of appellate counsel. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.051(d)(1) (West Supp. 2010). Because the State has 

indicated that appellant may not be indigent and the record fails to indicate whether 

appellant is indigent, we GRANT the State’s motion.

Accordingly, we ABATE and REMAND this cause to the trial court. Upon remand,

the trial court is directed to: (1) immediately cause notice to be given and conduct a 

hearing to determine whether appellant is indigent; (2) determine whether appellant’s 

court-appointed attorney should remain as appellant's counsel; (3) make and file 

appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law and cause them to be included in a 

clerk's record; (4) cause the hearing to be transcribed and included in a reporter's record; 

and (5) have these records forwarded to the Clerk of this Court within thirty days from the 

date of this order. If the trial court requires additional time to comply, the trial court should 

so notify the Clerk of this Court. 

It is so ordered.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

17th day of March, 2014.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4376 

To amend the Small Business Act to establish funding priorities for women’s 

business centers for fiscal year 2004. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2004 

Mrs. KELLY (for herself, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. MICHAUD, Ms. 

SLAUGHTER, Ms. MAJETTE, and Mr. UDALL of New Mexico) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to establish funding 

priorities for women’s business centers for fiscal year 2004. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Women’s Sustain5 ability Recovery Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR WOMEN’S BUSINESS DE7 VELOPMENT CENTERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

8 2004. 

9 (a) RESERVATION OF FUNDS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

10 GRANTS.—Notwithstanding section 29(k)(4)(B) of the 
2 

•HR 4376 IH 

1 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656(k)(4)(B)), 48 percent 

2 of the total amount made available for fiscal year 2004 

3 for grants under section 29 of such Act shall be reserved 

4 by the Administrator of the Small Business Administra5 tion for sustainability grants under section 29(l) of such 

6 Act. 

7 (b) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF SUSTAINABILITY

8 GRANTS.—The amount of funding made available by the 

9 Administrator of the Small Business Administration 

10 under section 29(l) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

11 656(l)) to any women’s business center for fiscal year 

12 2004 shall not exceed $125,000. 

13 (c) AMOUNT OF CONTINUATION GRANTS.—The 

14 amount of funding made available for fiscal year 2004 by 

15 the Administrator of the Small Business Administration 

16 under section 29(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

17 656(b)) to any women’s business center that also received 

18 funding under such section for fiscal year 2003 shall be 

19 equal to the lesser of— 

20 (1) $150,000, or 

21 (2) the amount requested by such women’s 

22 business center. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,123
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,454
<INVENTORY>                                     21,591
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,132
<PP&E>                                          46,414
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,214
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,534
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,639
<BONDS>                                        100,618
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            70
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,254
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,534
<SALES>                                         31,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,595
<CGS>                                           20,919
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,783
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   172
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,431)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       173
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,604)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,604)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4829 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4829

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
103 East Kleberg in Kingsville, Texas, as the ``Irma Rangel Post Office 
                               Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 103 
East Kleberg in Kingsville, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 
``Irma Rangel Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Irma Rangel Post Office 
Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
10451.

#### PERDUE *v.*THE STATE.

A conviction of larceny was authorized by the evidence, which included proof of a ‘confession of guilt, corroborated by evidence showing larceny of the cotton alleged to have been stolen, and that the basket in which it was when stolen was found where the accused said he put it. The sufficiency of the corroboration was a matter to be determined by the jury.

Decided June 27, 1919.

Accusation of larceny; 'from city court of Newnan—Judge Post. March 21, 1919.

*Stanford Arnold,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. L. Stallings, solicitor,*contra.

Bloodwortit, J..

A confession of guilt was established. This was not only corroborated by the fact that the larceny was clearly shown, but it was further corroborated by tbe fact that the basket in which the cotton was when stolen was found where the accused said he put it. “Proof of the corpus delicti may be sufficient corroboration of a confession of guilt to sustain a verdict of guilty.” *Davis*v. *State,*105 *Ga.*808 (3) (32 S. E. 158); *Allen*v. *State,*8 *Ga. App.*90 (68 S. E. 558). “While a conviction based upon an uncorroborated confession cannot be sustained, the sufficiency of the circumstances adduced for the purpose of corroboration is to he determined by the jury.” *Cook v. State,*9 *Ga. App.*208 (3) (70 S. E. 1019). “In this case the motion for g, new trial *51contained only the usual general grounds. There was some slight evidence authorizing the verdict; and the verdict having been approved by the trial judge* under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court* a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. When the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of the evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial; but whenever there is any evidence, however slight* to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge* this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” *Bradham v. State,*21 *Ga. App.*510 (94 S. E. 618), and cases cited.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
Judgment 1

AO 245D (Rev. 12/03) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations (9540)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

V. (For Revocation of Supervised Release)

OSHEA MONTRELL ODOM

CASE NUMBER: 1:08-CR-00042-002

USM NUMBER: 10181-003

THE DEFENDANT: Peter J. Madden, Esquire

Defendant's Attorney

admitted guilt to violation of supervision conditions 6, 7, &11, and Statutory X3 ,as set forth in the 

Amended Petition dated 8/21/2015.

was found in violation of supervision condition: ___

Violation Number Nature of Violation

Date violation

Occurred

11

Statutory

Statutory

Statutory

6

7

Technical

New Offense

New Offense

New Offense

Technical

Technical

10/14/2015

10/15/2015

06/13/2014

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 2 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed 

pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

The defendant has not violated condition(s) and is discharged as to such violation(s) 

condition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this 

district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, 

and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid.

Defendant's Social Security No. 6797

Defendant's Date of Birth: 1986

Defendant's Residence Address:

Mobile, AL__________________________

Defendant's Mailing Address:

___________________________

___________________________

August 27, 2015 

Date of Imposition of Judgment

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

August 31, 2015

Date

X

Case 1:08-cr-00042-CG-M Document 92 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 2
Judgment 2

AO 245D (Rev. 12/03) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations: Sheet 2 - Imprisonment

Defendant: OSHEA MONTRELL ODOM

Case Number: 1:08-CR-00042-002

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be 

imprisoned for a total term of TWENTY-FOUR (24) MONTHS

The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons: 

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:

at .m. on .

as notified by the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of 

Prisons:

before 2 p.m. on .

as notified by the United States Marshal.

as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Defendant delivered on to at __________________

with a certified copy of this judgment.

 UNITED STATES MARSHAL 

By _________________________________

 Deputy U.S. Marshal

X

Case 1:08-cr-00042-CG-M Document 92 Filed 08/31/15 Page 2 of 2