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

Advanced Manufacturing

June 7, 2011
State of U.S. Manufacturing

Manufacturing employment has been on a long decline; 250,000 jobs gained 

11

20

Millions Manufacturing Employment

11

1618

001

1214

00

10

1965 - Jan 1975 - Jan 1985 - Jan 1995 - Jan 2005 - Jan

11 6 011,70011,750

Thousands

RecentG

11,50011,55011,60011,650

Source: BLS/Haver.

11,40011,450

2009 - Nov 2010 - Apr 20
State of U.S. Manufacturing

Recent job gains concentrated in basic manufacturing industries

Net Job Growth

% Mfg GDP1

Fabricated Metals 89 8%

Net Job Growth

2009‐Dec to 2011‐Apr

7%

58 11%

61

Transport Equipment

Machinery

11%

34 3%

58

Primary Metals

p q p

8 72%

0 20 40 60 80 100

All Other

Source: BLS, BEA. 1. Industry % is based on 2009 Value‐Added estimates. Numbers do not add to 100% due to rounding.
A Framework for Revitalizing American Manufacturing

An approach to addressing the core challenges facing manufacturers

The Administration’s Framework for Revitalizing

American Manufacturing (2009) Relevance for today’s d

1. Provide workers with the opportunity to obtain

the skills necessary to be highly productive

2. Invest in the creation of new technologies and

• Macro policies are important, b

the requirements for Advanced 

– Trade– Tax

I f business practices

3. Develop stable and efficient capital markets for

business investment

– Infrastructure

– Energy– Education

4. Help communities and workers transition to a

better future

5. Invest in an advanced transportation

• Our advanced manufacturing fo

3⁄4 Effectiveness of our R&D 

3⁄4 Accelerating the commer

technologies infrastructure

6. Ensure market access and a level playing field

7. Improve the business climate, especially for

technologies

3⁄4 Training the next generat

7. Improve the business climate, especially for

manufacturing
Topics for your input

3⁄4 Commercializing process technologies

• Models for public‐private private collaboration collaboration on pre‐competitive competitive techn

techn

• Priority technology areas for pilots

3⁄4 Developing shared “innovation infrastructure”

• Core issues facing your supply chain

• Opportunities for big company leadership
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER and PRINCIPAL
       FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
          OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Everest Fund, L.P.
(the "Partnership"), for the quarter ended June 30, 2010,
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Lamoureux, President
of Everest Asset Management, Inc., the general partner of
the Everest Fund, L.P. (the "Fund"), hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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




      By:  /s/ Peter Lamoureux
         ----------------------
      Name: 	Peter Lamoureux
      Title: 	Director, President and
      		Treasurer

     September 21, 2010


		E-3
#### John S. Logan *v.*Sarah Logan.

Divorce — Grounds—Living Apart for Five Years.

Allegation and proof that the plaintiff and the defendant had lived separate and apart for more than five consecutive years, entitled either party to a divorce under § 1, art. 3, ch. 47, IR. S., however reprehensible the conduct of either may have been.

APPEAL PROM LAWRENCE CIRCUIT COURT.

September 15, 1873.

*90/. *R. Bolts, for appellant.*

*R. T. Burns, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

The plaintiff alleged in his petition and proved that he and the defendant had, before the institution of the suit, lived separately and apart for over five consecutive years; and under Sec. 1 of Article 3 of Chapter *47*of the Revised Statutes, either party was entitled to a divorce, however reprehensible his or her conduct may have been. Upon the last amended petition, and on the failure of the plaintiff to deny the allegations of the cross-petition, the defendant was entitled to all the relief adjudged to her; and she should also have been divorced if she had not discontinued her cross-petition for that object. But the judgment, in so far only as. it refuses to' divorce the plaintiff, must be reversed.

Wherefore the judgment is, to the extent indicated, reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to adjudge to the plaintiff a divorce, but leaving the .judgment in force as to the custody of the child of the parties, and all rights and privileges of the defendant as to property, as adjudged by the court below, and the appellant should pay the costs of this appeal.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ANTONIO COLBERT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-5029

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:13-cv-00918-FMA, Judge Francis M. 

Allegra.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Antonio Colbert moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. He also submits a “motion for res judicata.” 

Upon consideration thereof, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

Case: 14-5029 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 07/31/2014
2 COLBERT v. US

 (1) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

is granted. 

 (2) The mandate is recalled, the court’s dismissal 

order is vacated, and the appeal is reinstated. The United 

States has 21 days from the date of this order to file its 

informal brief.

 (3) The “motion for res judicata” is denied. To the 

extent that the motion for res judicata is arguing the 

merits of his appeal, those arguments belong in his brief. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s24

Case: 14-5029 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 07/31/2014
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63

OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer
of Moore Wallace Incorporated, a corporation continued under the laws of Canada (the Corporation), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



|                         |  |  |  |                                                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 27, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    Mark A. Angelson                                
|                         |  |  |  |                                                        
|                         |  |  |  | Name: Mark A. Angelson Title:
  Chief Executive Officer



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63

OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES
CODE)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Moore Wallace Incorporated, a corporation continued under the laws of Canada (the Corporation), hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



|                         |  |  |  |                                                                                               
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 27, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    James R. Sulat                                                                         
|                         |  |  |  |                                                                                               
|                         |  |  |  | Name: James R. Sulat Title:
  Senior Executive Vice President, Interim Chief Financial
Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4643 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4643

To authorize the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
make grants to fire departments for the acquisition of thermal imaging 
                                cameras.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 2004

 Mr. Ferguson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
make grants to fire departments for the acquisition of thermal imaging 
                                cameras.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Access to Thermal Imaging Cameras 
Act''.

SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM.

    (a) Authority.--In accordance with this section, the Director of 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency may make grants, on a 
competitive basis, to fire departments for the purpose of acquiring 
thermal imaging cameras.
    (b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
acquiring equipment under subsection (a) shall be 33 percent.
    (c) Limitation on Administrative Costs.--Of amounts made available 
under section 3, the Director may use not more than 10 percent for the 
administrative costs of carrying out this section.
    (d) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after making the 
first grant under subsection (a), the Director shall transmit to 
Congress a report on the results of the grant program under this 
section.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    For the purposes of carrying out section 2, there is authorized to 
be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of Millipore Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis
J. Lunger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




/s/ Francis J. Lunger



Francis J. Lunger
Chief Executive Officer
March 12, 2003
October 1, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GILJOY TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND GILBERT CRUZ, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00503-CV

NO. 14-13-00573-CV V.

THE CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on June 6, 2013. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Giljoy Technology, Inc. and Gilbert Cruz.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
10334.

#### Copeland *v.*Gilbert.

Stephens, J.

1. A direct bill of exceptions which excepts to the verdict and to a ruling of the court necessarily controlling the verdict, viz. the direction of a verdict, which is brought up under section 6144 of the Civil Code, is not subject to dismissal'upon the ground that the plaintiff in error failed to except to the final judgment.

2. A motion for a new trial will not operate to deprive the movant of his right to a direct bill of exceptions complaining of a ruling of the trial judge that controlled the verdict, when such motion for a new trial had been dismissed before the signing and filing of the bill of exceptions; and such direct bill of exceptions, when tendered in due time, will not be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff in error bad elected to move for a new trial instead of coming to this court on a direct bill of exceptions. See, in this connection, *Wright*v. *Hollywood Cemetery Corp.,*112 *Ga.*884, 893, 894 (38 S. E. 94, 52 L. R. A. 621).

3. The questions of law which were decided in this case upon general demurrer when brought .before this court as reported in *Gilbert*v. *Copeland,*22 *Ga. App.*752 (97 S. E. 251), have no application to the ease as here presented under the evidence. The evidence upon the trial showed that the relation of landlord and tenant existed between the defendant Copeland, as landlord, and a third party by the name of Bell, as his tenant; that the rent was to be paid in kind, the landlord receiving part of the crop; that the crop sued for had been delivered to the landlord by the tenant for the payment of rent for the premises upon which it had grown. As a landlord holds a lien for rent upon all the crops raised by his tenant upon the rented premises, a trover suit, therefore, cannot be maintained by a third party, claiming title under contract with the tenant, to recover the crops raised by the tenant on the rented premises and delivered by the latter to the landlord for the payment of rent, until the lien in favor of the landlord has been discharged. The fact that the tenant was under contract with the third party (plaintiff in trover) to deliver to such third party certain parts of the crop in question which was raised from seed furnished by plaintiff and the title to which crop, under the contract, was to remain in the plaintiff, would not operate to destroy the landlord’s lien for rent on all of the crops raised on his land, including those *388described in the contract with the plaintiff in trover. The court therefore erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Decided November 6, 1919.

Trover; from city court of Thomasville—Judge W. H. Hammond. January 6, 1919.

*Titus, Delcle & Ilophins,*for plaintiff in error.

*O. E. Hay, Eldon L. Joiner,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
#### Charles *W.*Smith v. Emmons R. Huntley.

*Excessive judgment*— General *exceptions.*

A mere general exception to a judgment cannot properly raise the point' that it exceeds the amount fixed by the bill of particulars; the question should be raised by calling for a special finding and claiming that it does not support the judgment, or by taking a ruling on the point and excepting to it.

Error to Kent.

Submitted April 24.

Decided April 25.

Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

*E. 8. Eggleston*for appellant.

*Mayncvrd <& Wcmty*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

This ease is brought here by writ of error.. There is no finding of facts and no special exception. The exception relied upon is a general exception to the judgment. It is now claimed that error appears by a comparison of the judgment with the declaration and the bill of particulars ; in this way, that by that comparison the judgment is shown to be more than could regularly have been given under the bill of particulars. But nothing appears by the record to show that the attention of the circuit judge was ever called to any such question, or that he ever saw the bill of particulars. *We*review only the rulings of the circuit judge; and to enable the party to raise this question he should either have obtained special findings, which he could then claim do not support the judgment, or he should have had a ruling upon the point and taken his exception to the-ruling.

Motion denied.
Preparing for Careers in Cybersecurity and

Privacy with Internships 

October 19, 2022 This webinar and the engagement tools are being recorded 

nccoe.nist.gov | nist.gov/nice 
 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

2

Welcome!

• Please use the Q&A

window to enter your

questions

• We will do our best to

answer the questions in

real time and will post

responses to those we

didn’t have time to

cover

1. To open the Q&A panel,

click on the ellipses at the

bottom of the screen for 2. Type your question in the 'More Panels' and click on text box and click Send.

Q&A.

Celebrating 50 years of	Cybersecurity at NIST 2
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

 

3

Preparing for Careers in	Cybersecurity and Privacy with	Internships

Panelists

Davina Pruitt-Mentle 

NICE 

(moderator)

Michael Powell, Ph.D. 

NCCoE 

Leilani Martinez 

NIST 

Erika Loc 

NCCoE 

nccoe.nist.gov | nist.gov/nice 

@NISTcyber 

#NCCoE | #NICEatNIST 

Celebrating 50 years of	Cybersecurity at NIST 3
 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

4

Q&A

• Please use the Q&A 

window to enter your 

questions 

• We will do our best to 

answer the questions in 

real time and will post 

responses to those we 

didn’t have time to 

cover 

1. To open the Q&A panel, 

click on the ellipses at the 

bottom of the screen for 2. Type your question in the 'More Panels' and click on text box and click Send Q&A. 

Celebrating 50 years of	Cybersecurity at NIST 4
nist.gov/nice/ccaw

#CyberCareerWeek #MyCyberJob
	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 6

NCCoE	Learning Series

To register for future events:

www.nccoe.nist.gov/getinvolved/attend-events

October 20,	1:00-3:00: NCCoE

Celebrates CyberWeek with

Students	and	Faculty

Celebrating 50 years of	Cybersecurity at NIST 6
 

Upcoming Webinar: 

“Using Registered Apprenticeships to Source Mid-Career Roles in Cybersecurity” 

When: November 14, 2022, at 2:00-3:00PM ET 

Register: https://nist-secure.webex.com/nistsecure/j.php?RGID=r4e2a34d2a37b885e135ac7b5e2787cca 

nist.gov/nice/webinars 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NICENCCOEOctoberwebinar 

Complete

Survey

After	Event
This concludes the presentation 

nccoe.nist.gov @NISTcyber nist.gov/nice
#### H. M. Dickerson *v.*Theodore Trimble et al.

Appeal — Reversal—Findings of Court.

Where a case is submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, the finding of the court, which is not flagrantly wrong, will not he disturbed on' appeal.

APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 25, 1874.

OPINION by

Judge Lindsay :

It has been held by this court that a married woman may be invested with a separate estate in personal property without any written memorial of the transaction being made.

*5267. *N. Gurber, for appellant.*

*Robt. Simmons, for appellees.*

The proof in this case is clear, conclusive and undisputed that the piano was paid for with money furnished by the children of Mrs. Trimble, and also that they intended her to hold' it as separate estate, free from the control of her husband. The lease executed by Mrs. Trimble to the firm, from which the piano was purchased, is not necessarily inconsistent with the oral testimony. But if it was, as the donors were the parties who furnished the money, a paper executed to the parties selling the piano cannot be regarded as conclusive of her rights. The case was submitted to the judge without the intervention of a jury. He fojund the piano to be separate estate. His finding is not flagrantly wrong and will not, therefore, be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.
Order entered November 16, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01038-CV

KARLA C. LIANG, Appellant

V.

SHAWANNA EDWARDS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 004-00315-2014

ORDER

We GRANT court reporter Claudia Webb’s November 10, 2015 request to extend time 

to file the reporter’s record and ORDER the record be filed no later than November 30, 2015.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4731 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4731

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 30, 2004

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                       National Estuary Program.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

    Section 320(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 29, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 32**

PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, the Corporate Trustee ofMesabi Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge, the Amendment to the Annual Report of Mesabi Trust on Form 10-K forthe fiscal year ended January 31, 2007 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents inall material respects the financial condition and results of operations ofMesabi Trust.
| /s/ Rodney Gaughan                                                             |   | April 13, 2007 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------|
| Rodney Gaughan*                                                                |
| Assistant Vice President                                                       |
| Deutsche Bank National Trust Company  For Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas |

 

----

* There are no principalexecutive officers or principal financial officers of the registrant.

*A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mesabi Trust and will beretained by Mesabi Trust and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.*

1

----