alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pervasive, Accurate and Reliable Location

Based Services For First Responders

Niki Trigoni and Andrew Markham

Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford

{firstname.lastname}@cs.ox.ac.uk

Challenges for Location Based Services in Emergency Situations

 Cannot rely on existing infrastructure or satellite tracking

 Poor penetration prevents use of high-frequency RF

 Need for high accuracy, availability and reliability

Approaches

2 Combine multiple pervasive technologies with different failure modes to provide reliable sources of

positioning information

2 Fuse noisy trajectories into maps to provide accurate locations of all personnel in real-time

Visual Odometry

Exploit deep learning approach

for combining visual frames with

inertial data for highly accurate

data-driven odometry:

Inertial Tracking

Use robust dead reckoning

methods for obtaining accurate

trajectories:

Magneto-Inductive

Magneto-inductive positioning

and communication uses LF to

penetrate dense materials:

Map Matching

When possible, exploit existing maps to "snap"

noisy trajectories onto a 2.5D floorplan. Maps are

augmented with additional features.

Trajectories with drift Map-matched

Map Building

When maps are not available or accurate, multiple

trajectories are stitched together to form an

accurate map, bound by MI fingerprints.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         597,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,611,500
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,761,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,942,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      2,970,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,669,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,942,800
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,351,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  966,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             209,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                174,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   174,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Gregory F. Kowal, Chief Executive Officer of Mera Pharmaceuticals, certify that (1) Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.s Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 3 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date:   March 18, 2007 
|/s/Gregory F. Kowal    
|Gregory F. Kowal       
|Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1251 KA 12-01819 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID O. NEIL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KATHLEEN P. REARDON, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JOHN C. TUNNEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Marianne Furfure, A.J.), rendered September 26, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his guilty plea, of attempted arson in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his guilty plea, of attempted arson in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 150.15). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution has been preserved for our review ( see generally People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 665), we conclude that defendant’s challenge lacks merit. Defendant “pleaded guilty to a crime lesser than that charged in the indictment,” and thus no factual colloquy was required ( People v Richards , 93 AD3d 1240, 1240, lv denied 20 NY3d 1014). Defendant further contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel did not explore or address a possible defense of intoxication. Although defendant’s contention “survives his guilty plea . . . to the extent that [he] contends that his plea was infected by the alleged ineffective assistance,” we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation inasmuch as he received “an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” ( People v Nieves , 299 AD2d 888, 889, lv denied 99 NY2d 631 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Campbell , 106 AD3d 1507, 1508, lv denied 21 NY3d 1002).

Entered: December 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Barnes *v.*Wright et al.

Default.—Judgment.—Where a defendant has been brought into court, and has suffered a judgment to be rendered against him by default, he cannot appeal to the Supreme Court for the correction of any supposed error in the ’ judgment, without having first applied to the court below for the correction.

APPEAL from the Grant Common Pleas.

Worden, J.

This was an action by the appellees against the appellant upon a promissory note.

The defendant was duly brought into court by the service of a summons, and there was judgment against him by default. The note stipulated for the payment of attorney’s fees, if suit should be brought thereon, and it was averred in the complaint that the attorney’s fees were of the reasonable value of forty dollars. The j udgment was rendered for a little over *294ten dollars too much, adding the forty dollars, for attorney’s fees, to the principal and interest of the note. But there were no steps taken in the court below to correct this error in the computation. It might have been there corrected without coming to this court. Where the defendant has been brought into court, and has suffered a judgment to be rendered against him by default, he cannot appeal to this court for the correction of any supposed error in the judgment, without having first applied to the court below for the correction.

*J. Brownlee*and *H. Brownlee*for appellant.

*A. Steele*and *R. T. St. yohn*for appellees.

This has been settled in a large number of cases. It will be sufficient to refer to the following: *Darlington*v. Warner, 14 Ind. 449; *Sturgis*v. *Rodman,*14 Ind. 604; *Durbon*v. *Connor,*15 Ind. 433. In *Skeen*v. *Huntington,*25 Ind. 510, the rule was applied to a case where there was a question as to the sufficiency of service.

But the appellees having in this court remitted the amount of ten dollars and sixty-five cents of the judgment below, the residue of the judgment below is affirmed, with costs.
----

| Section                                            | Heading                         | Page   |
|----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------|
|                                               |                            |   |   |
| Parties                                            |                            |   | 1 |
|                                               |                            |   |   |
| Recitals                                           |                            | 1      |
|                                               |                            |   |   |
| ARTICLE      I                                     | BONDS      OF THE EIGHTH SERIES | 7      |
|                                               | Section      1.1                |   | 7 |
|                                               |                            |   |   |
| ARTICLE      II                                    | MISCELLANEOUS      PROVISIONS   | 10     |
|                                               | Section      2.1                |   | 10 |
|                                               | Section      2.2                |   | 10 |
|                                               | Section      2.3                |   | 10 |
|                                               | Section      2.4                |   | 10 |
|                                               | Section      2.5                |   | 10 |
|                                               | Section      2.6                |   | 10 |
|                                               |                            |   |   |
| Signature      Page                                |                            | 11     |
|                                               |                            |   |   |
| ATTACHMENTS      TO SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE:        |                            |
|                                               |                            |   |   |
| EXHIBIT      A - Form of Bond of the Eighth Series |                            |

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|   | SUPERIOR      WATER, LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated December
24, 1997, covering the consolidated balance sheet of American HealthChoice, Inc.
as of September 30, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year ended September 30, 1997 into
the Form S-3 registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 8, 1998.



/s/ Lane Gorman Trubitt, L.L.P.
-------------------------------
Lane Gorman Trubitt, L.L.P.
Dallas, Texas
October 6, 1998
----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|  |  | /s/                Jeffrey H.                Fox                                  |
|--|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  |   | JEFFREY                H. FOX |
|--|--------|-------------------------------|
Exhibit 24

United States
Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.  20549



                                        Re:      ALLTEL Corporation
                                                 Commission File No. 1-4996
                                                 1934 Act Filings on Form 10-K
                                                 Authorized Representatives

Gentlemen:

     The above Company is the issuer of securities registered under Section 12
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (The "Act").  Each of the persons 
signing his name below confirms, as of the date appearing opposite his 
signature, that each of the "Authorized Representatives" named below is 
authorized on his behalf to sign and submit to the Securities and Exchange 
Commission such filings on Form 10-K as are required by the Act.  Each person
so signing also confirms the authority of each of the Authorized 
Representatives to do and perform on his behalf, any and all acts and things
requisite or necessary to assure compliance by the signing person with the
Form 10-K requirements.  The authority confirmed herein shall remain in
effect as to each person signing his name below until such time as the
Commission shall receive from such person a written communication terminating
or modifying the authority.  Each person signing his name below expressly
revokes all authority heretofore given or executed by him with respect to
such filings under the Act.

                           Authorized Representatives

                                  Scott T. Ford
                                 Dennis J. Ferra
                                Francis X. Frantz
                               Jeffrey R. Gardner

                                   Date                                Date

/s/ Joe Ford                      10/22/98     /s/ W. W. Johnson      10/22/98
------------------------------------------     -------------------------------
/s/ Dennis Foster                 10/22/98     /s/ Scott Ford         10/22/98
------------------------------------------     -------------------------------
/s/ Lawrence L. Gellerstedt, III  10/22/98     /s/ Michael Hooker     10/22/98
------------------------------------------     -------------------------------
/s/ Ronald Townsend               10/22/98
------------------------------------------
/s/ Josie C. Natori               10/22/98
------------------------------------------
/s/ John McConnell                10/22/98
------------------------------------------
/s/ Charles H. Goodman            10/22/98
------------------------------------------
/s/ William H. Zimmer             10/22/98
------------------------------------------
/s/ Frank E. Reed                 10/22/98
------------------------------------------
/s/ John R. Belk                  10/22/98
------------------------------------------
/s/ Emon A. Mahony, Jr.           10/22/98
------------------------------------------

                                      201
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.

Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;

Litigation matter; and

Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: December 4, 2014.

Brent J. Fields,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-28872 Filed 12-5-14; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
H. R. 4618

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 10 West

Prospect Street in Nanuet, New York, as the ‘‘Anthony I. Lombardi Memorial

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

10 West Prospect Street in Nanuet, New York, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Anthony I. Lombardi Memorial 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 ‘‘Anthony

I. Lombardi Memorial Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
POST-DOCTORAL STUDENT APPLICATION

Professional Research Experience Program

 STUDENT INFORMATION: Please type or print in BLACK ink only.

 NAME (Last, First, M.I.) SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER DATE OF BIRTH

 

 PRESENT ADDRESS ZIP CODE PHONE

 

 PREVIOUS ADDRESS ZIP CODE PHONE

 

 MAJOR CUM GPA

STUDENT BACKGROUND:

Are you a U.S. Citizen?

* Yes * No

 * Male

 * Female

Ethnicity:

 (Optional)

Have you ever been granted a U.S. Government Security Clearance?

* Yes * No

Granting Agency:

Date:

PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL REFERENCES:

 List three (3) persons in your field who can verify your qualifications:

NAME ADDRESS DAYTIME PHONE OCCUPATION

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

 List foreign languages you speak or read

 Do you speak these languages fluently and/or read them proficiently? * Yes * No

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
Start with the present or last position first, include summer or part-time work.

Employed Organization or Firm Supervisor's Name

Start Date

Mo. Yr.

Address Supervisor's Title

End Date

Mo. Yr.

Your Title Reason for Leaving

 Description of Duties (Please be specific): 

 

 

 

 

 

Employed Organization or Firm Supervisor's Name

Start Date

Mo. Yr.

Address Supervisor's Title

End Date

Mo. Yr.

Your Title Reason for Leaving

 Description of Duties (Please be specific): 

 

 

 

 

 

Employed Organization or Firm Supervisor's Name

Start Date

Mo. Yr.

Address Supervisor's Title

End Date

Mo. Yr.

Your Title Reason for Leaving

 Description of Duties (Please be specific): 

 

 

 

 

 
DEGREES: 

INSTITUTION DATES

SPECIAL HONORS OR AWARDS:

THESIS TITLE OR SUBJECT:

How did you hear about the PREP Fellowship Program?

 * Saw an announcement at school * Informed in the Grants Office

 * Informed by a faculty member * Received information in the mail

 * Heard about it from a friend * Informed by an employer

 * Other (specify): 

 I UNDERSTAND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE NIST PREP FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.

STUDENT DATE

Please attach a copy of your grade transcripts and provide three letters of recommendation.
#### Dudley et al. *v.*The Blountsville and Windsor Turnpike Company.

County Commissioners. — Appeal.—No appeal lies from the decision of a board of county commissioners upon an application of a turnpike company for leave to construct its road along a public highway.

APPEAL from the Randolph Common Pleas.

*T. M. Browne,*for appellants.

*y. y. Cheney*and *E.*L. *Wafson,*for appellee.

Pettit, J.

The appellee petitioned the board of commissioners of Randolph county for leave to construct its turnpike over, on, and along a certain public highway in that county, under section 4, I G. & H. 475. The appellants appeared before the board, and filed a remonstrance against granting the prayer of the petition. The board, after hearing evidence, refused to consent that the highway might be used by the company for the construction of its turnpike. The appellee appealed to the court of common pleas, in which court the appellants moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, there being no appeal from the exercise of a mere discretion vested in the board. This motion was overruled, and exception taken. There was a trial, and judgment for the company, giving it the right to use the highway for the construction of its turnpike, notwithstanding the refusal of the board of commissioners. The overruling of the motion to dismiss the appeal is assigned for error.

We hold that the section above referred to vests a mere discretion in the board of commissioners, that no other body, court, or tribunal can exercise, control, or direct; and from the exercise of -which, either way, no appeal lies to any court. The language of the law, and the nature of the case, alike warrant this conclusion.

The judgment is reversed, at the costs of the appellee, with instructions to the court to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11417 Conference Calendar

CEVERO GONGORA CASTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES; A. O’BRYAN, Supv. Off. Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3-96-CV-2430-D

- - - - - - - - - - June 18, 1997 Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Cevero Gongora Castillo, #498841, appeals the dismissal of his § 1983 action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Castillo’s challenge to his place of confinement lacks an arguable basis in law, and his challenge to the fact of his confinement is not cognizable in a § 1983 action. See Meachum v. Fano , 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976); Jackson v. Vannoy ,No. 96-11417 - 2 - 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did not err in dismissing the action as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).
See Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). This appeal is frivolous and is hereby dismissed. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Castillo that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Castillo is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.