alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

April 28, 2017

ERRATA

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2015-5084

REOFORCE, INC., THEODORE SIMONSON, 

RONALD STEHN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

Decided: March 17, 2017

Precedential Opinion

______________________ 

Please make the following changes: 

On page 4, lines 4-13, delete: 

Once established, a mining claimant receives “a ‘patent,’ that is, an official 

document issued by the United States 

attesting that fee title to the land is in 

the private owner.” Kunkes v. United 

States, 78 F.3d 1549, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 

1996). A patented mining claim is “a 

property right in the full sense.” Union 

Oil Co. v. Smith, 249 U.S. 337, 349 

(1919). 
2 REOFORCE, INC. v. US

Until a patent issues, the mining claimant has an “unpatented” mining claim, a 

“unique form of property.” Best, 371 

U.S. at 335–36.

Replace the deleted language with this paragraph: 

The Mining Law allows the holder of a 

valid mining claim to apply for “a ‘patent,’ that is, an official document issued by the United States attesting that 

fee title to the land is in the private 

owner.” Kunkes v. United States, 78 

F.3d 1549, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1996). [insert footnote 1] Until a patent issues, 

however, the mining claimant has an 

“unpatented” mining claim, a “unique 

form of property.” Best, 371 U.S. at 335–

36; see also Union Oil Co. v. Smith, 249 

U.S. 337, 349 (1919) (an unpatented 

mining claim is “a property right in the 

full sense”).

Insert Footnote 1, as indicated above, to read: 

“Since 1994, Congress has imposed a 

moratorium on the processing of new 

patent applications. See Interior and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 

1995, Pub. L. No. 103-332, 108 Stat. 

2499 (1994).”

The following paragraph should start with the sentence currently at page 4, line 13: 

“An unpatented claim...”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CAPITAL GROWTH, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             896
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   896
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     896
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,222
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (79,326)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       896
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   574
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (574)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (574)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (574)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Sample Mounting for 

50mm OC

OD=48mm

ID=1.75”

440mm

Bottom wall is 

3mm thick

339mm

neutron 

window

98 mm

106mm (max 

sample height)

Mixing Chamber: 

Bottom mounting 

flange with a 5/16-18 

threaded hole in it, 

3/4“ deep

Sample center is 

~56mm below MC

• Sample holder needs to be made from 

OFHC copper, like this one

• Sample diameter <=35 mm

• Sample length <= 100 mm

• Sample center is ~56mm below the 

mounting surface
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 2 30 A1 5
Filed 18 December 2015
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY

v. PEACOCK FARM, INC., RODOLPHE T. LYNCH , and WILLARD A. RHODES

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A

- 30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 7 72 S.E.2d 49 5 (20 1 5 ), dismissing an interlocutory appeal from an order entered on 5 June 2012, as certified under Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) by an order entered on 16 April 201 4, both by Judge Anderson
D. Cromer in Superior Court, Moore County . Heard in the Supreme Court on 17
November 2015

. Howard, Stallings, From, Hutson, Atkins, Angell & Davis, P.A., by John N. Hutson, Jr. and Matthew M. Lawless, for plaintiff

- appell ee
. Van Camp, Meacham & Newman, PLLC, by William M. Van O’Linda, Jr., for defendant

- appell ant Rodolphe T. Lynch

.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the majority opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. We remand this case to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the trial court so that additional proceedings may be held not inconsistent with the opinion.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

.
Exhibit 24.1
  POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  Form 10-K
      By:
    /s/  Thomas
    K. Montag     Dated: February 28, 2011
  Signature

Title

Date/s/  Thomas
    K. MontagThomas
    K. Montag

Director and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
    Officer)

February 28, 2011/s/  Robert
    QutubRobert
    Qutub

Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

February 28, 2011/s/  Peter
    D. TaubePeter
    D. Taube

Chief Accounting Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting
    Officer)

February 28, 2011/s/  Brian
    T. MoynihanBrian
    T. Moynihan

Chairman and Director

February 28, 2011/s/  Charles
    H. NoskiCharles
    H. Noski

Director

February 28, 2011/s/  Sallie
    L. KrawcheckSallie
    L. Krawcheck

Director

February 28, 2011/s/  Bruce
    ThompsonBruce
    Thompson

Director

February 28, 2011
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4521 

To amend section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949 to allow borrowers 

under the rural single family housing guaranteed loan program to finance 

the amount of the guarantee fee. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 8, 2004 

Mr. RENZI (for himself and Mr. DAVIS of Alabama) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949 to allow 

borrowers under the rural single family housing guaranteed loan program to finance the amount of the guarantee fee. 

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 ‘‘Financing Homes for 

5 Rural Americans Act’’. 
2 

•HR 4521 IH 

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO FINANCE OF GUARANTEE FEE. 

2 Subparagraph (C) of section 502(h)(6) of the Hous3 ing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(6)(C)) is amended 

4 by adding after and below clause (ii) the following: 

5 ‘‘The limitation on the maximum amount of the 

6 principal obligation of a loan guaranteed pursu7 ant to this subsection that is otherwise applica8 ble to a loan pursuant to clause (i) or (ii) may 

9 be increased by the amount of the fee collected 

10 by the Secretary in connection with guarantee 

11 of the loan.’’. 

Æ
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Richard C. Notebaert, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Qwest Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: February 8, 2007



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/    RICHARD C.
NOTEBAERT          
|Chief Executive Officer and President
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Earl Dietrich, Ian Knight, J.J. Leal, Shannon McLeod, and Frontier MWD Systems, LLC v. Weatherford International, LLC and Weatherford, U.S., L.P.

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00556

- CV

Trial court case number: 2019

- 25169

Trial court: 61st District Court of Harris County

On October 17, 2019, the Clerk of this Court issued notice of intent to dismiss this

accelerated appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants, Earl Dietrich, Ian Knight, J.J. Leal, Shannon McLeod, and Frontier MWD Systems, LLC, satisfactorily responded that they timely filed their notice of appeal on Monday following the 20

- day deadline that fell on a Sunday. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(b), 4.1(a).

T he Court directs the Clerk of this Court to place this appeal on the accelerated appeal

docket. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.1, 38.6.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: __ October 31, 2019

___
No. 14-0766 – State of West Virginia ex. rel. Ford Motor Company, et al. v. The Honorable David W. Nibert FILED April 9, 2015
RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA Justice Ketchum, concurring:
I agree that this case should be remanded for the trial judge to make specific
findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by West Virginia Code § 56-1­

1(e).

My reading of the record, West Virginia Code § 56-1-1, and our case law
lead me to believe, without any doubt, that the proper forum is Michigan.
Nevertheless, the trial judge may have seen something I missed and should be
allowed to make specific findings and conclusions before this Court rules.
January 17, 2024

Secure AI Development 

@ Google
Expand strong 

security 

foundations to 

the AI 

ecosystem

Extend 

detection and 

response to 

bring AI into an 

organization’s 

threat universe

Automate 

defenses to 

keep pace with 

existing and new 

threats

Harmonize 

platform level 

controls to 

ensure 

consistent 

security across 

the organization

Adapt controls 

to adjust 

mitigations and 

create faster 

feedback loops 

for AI 

deployment

Contextualize AI 

system risks in 

surrounding 

business 

processes

Google’s Secure AI Framework – 

Leadership in AI development

AI is advancing rapidly, and it’s important that effective risk management 

strategies evolve along with it.
Goals for AI Supply Chain Security

“Provide open standards

and robust solutions for

transparency, trust and control

of the AI Supply Chain”
AI vs Traditional Software Supply Chain

Similarities

● Similar SDLC, with different 

terminologies (e.g. Build vs 

Training, Artifact vs Model)

● Model tampering has same 

security severity (RCE/leaks) 

● No need to reinvent the 

wheel for security

Differences

● Data, Code, Configs and Models 

are intertwined

● Provenance/trusted lineage

on massive datasets

● Rapid, iterative development 

processes
AI Supply Chain Threats

ML Developer Train model Deploy to 

model hub

Inference

Databases, ML 

frameworks, ...

Model source Download 

model

Compromise 

source control

Submit bad code

Inject 

vulnerability

Compromise 

training process

Compromise model hub / 

model
AI Supply Chain Security Problems

● Did the ML model creator use safe development practices?

● For open source models, what was the training code used?

● What datasets went into training that model?

● Who published the model? Are they trustworthy?

● Could the model have been replaced by a tampered version

following publication or during training time?
● Did the ML model creator use safe development practices?

● For open source models, what was the training code used?

● What datasets went into training that model?

● Who published the model? Are they trustworthy?

● Could the model have been replaced by a tampered version

following publication or during training time?

AI Supply Chain Security: Current Solution

Solution

https://security.googleblog.com/2023/10/increasing-transparency-in-ai-security.html
More than just Supply Chain Integrity

● SSCI for ML is just one pillar of SAIF

● Model cards integrations

● Engagements with OSS (OpenSSF AI Working Group, LF AI & Data)
I

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 467

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require that foods

containing spices, flavoring, or coloring derived from meat, poultry, other

animal products (including insects), or known allergens bear labeling

stating that fact and their names.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 29, 2003

Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Ms. LEE, and Ms. DELAURO) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to

require that foods containing spices, flavoring, or coloring

derived from meat, poultry, other animal products (including insects), or known allergens bear labeling stating

that fact and their names.

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 ‘‘Food Ingredient Right

5 to Know Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds as follows:
2

•HR 467 IH

1 (1) Millions of Americans follow certain dietary

2 guidelines for health, religious, and cultural reasons.

3 These individuals depend on ingredient labels for the

4 information they need to abide by these guidelines.

5 (2) Under current regulations, food manufac6 turers are not required to identify the products used

7 in natural or artificial flavorings, colorings, or

8 spices, or some food additives.

9 (3) These additives often contain derivatives of

10 meat, poultry, other animal products such as insects,

11 and allergens (such as peanuts, tree nuts, fish, shell12 fish, eggs, milk, soy, and wheat).

13 SEC. 3. FOOD LABELING; REQUIREMENT OF STATEMENT

14 REGARDING SPICES, FLAVORING, AND

15 COLORING DERIVED FROM MEAT, POULTRY,

16 OR KNOWN ALLERGENS.

17 Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

18 Act (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended—

19 (1) in paragraph (g), by inserting ‘‘, subject to

20 paragraph (w)’’ before the period at the end;

21 (2) in paragraph (i), by inserting ‘‘, subject to

22 paragraph (w)’’ before the first period; and

23 (3) by adding at the end the following para24 graph:
3

•HR 467 IH

1 ‘‘(w) If it contains any spice, flavoring, or coloring

2 derived from meat, poultry, any other animal product (in3 cluding insects), or a known food allergen unless its label4 ing bears a statement with appropriate prominence on the

5 information panel providing that fact and the name of the

6 meat, poultry, other animal product, or known food aller7 gen, respectively.’’.

Æ
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




2006 Base Salaries for Executive Officers




	 	 	 
	Name and Title

	 	Salary
	 

	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 
	Robert C. Strauss
	 	 	 	 
	President & Chief Executive Officer
	 	$	587,741	 
	Eduardo G. Abrao, M.D.
	 	 	 	 
	Vice President & Chief Medical Officer
	 	$	274,006	 
	Diane M. Barrett
	 	 	 	 
	Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
	 	$	260,000	 
	Jeffrey F. Eisenberg
	 	 	 	 
	Senior Vice President – Strategic Alliances
	 	$	302,703	 
	W. Neil Jones
	 	 	 	 
	Vice President – Marketing & Sales
	 	$	243,591	 
	Juan A. Mantelle
	 	 	 	 
	Vice President & Chief Technical Officer
	 	$	267,998
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 27, 2010

p0920 

# Order

September 27, 2010

141102

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141102 COA: 296184 Mecosta CC: 05-005658-FH CHARLES JOSEPH SPACHER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 4, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

D AVIS 

### , J., not participating. I recuse myse lf and am not participating because I was on the Court of Appeals panel in this case. See MCR 2.003(B).
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4596 

To amend Public Law 97–435 to extend the authorization for the Secretary 

of the Interior to release certain conditions contained in a patent concerning certain land conveyed by the United States to Eastern Washington University until December 31, 2009. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2004 

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

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 97–435 to extend the authorization 

for the Secretary of the Interior to release certain conditions contained in a patent concerning certain land conveyed by the United States to Eastern Washington University until December 31, 2009. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4596 IH 

1 SECTION 1. EASTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAND 

2 TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION EXTENSION. 

3 Section 1(c) of Public Law 97–435 is amended by 

4 striking ‘‘five years after the enactment of this Act’’ and 

5 inserting ‘‘on December 31, 2009’’. 

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7595
MICHAEL L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; EUGENE N UTH; WILLIAM FILBERT, Assistant Warden; JOSEPH E. MITCHELL; FELICITE M. MORAN, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-95- 1100-MJG) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael L. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Lanham , No. CA-95-1100-MJG (D. Md. Sept. 13, 1995). 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

KEITH L. CAMPBELL, 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee.

§ 

§ 

§ No. 290, 2020 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 1411008699 (N) 

§ 

§ 

§

 Submitted: January 6, 2021 

 Decided: February 8, 2021 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 

Justices. 

ORDER

 After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s 

motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below 

should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s order, dated August 25, 2020, 

adopting the Commissioner’s report and recommendations, dated June 4, 2020. The 

Superior Court did not err in concluding that the appellant’s third motion for 

postconviction relief was subject to summary dismissal because he pleaded guilty 

and was not convicted after trial.1 

1

 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (providing that a second or subsequent Rule 61 motion “shall be 

summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion” pleads with 
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice

particularity new evidence creating a strong inference that the movant was actually innocent or a 

new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review).