alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
To: cyberframework 

Subject: NIST CSF 2.0 Core - Feedback 

Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 12:03:54 PM 

Hello, 

After having read the proposal I feel that the draft is missing important aspects of CTI. In my, and 

many others’ view, CTI or intelligence analysis should be its own function, for example “predict”. 

Why? 

CTI help decision makers make informed security decisions. 

It help assess and predict current and future threats. 

It helps inform security control decisions based on threat actor TTPs. 

It informs testers and red-teams on attack TTPs to simulate in their tests. 

It supports incident response with attribution and assessment of other or TTPs and helps defence 

detection at a technical indicator and behaviour levels 

These are missing from the proposal, yet they are critical parts of day to day security operations. 

Kind Regards, 

Freddy Murstad 

Senior Threat Intelligence Analyst
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Victor S. Elgohary, Individually and representatively on 

behalf of Nominal Defendant Lakes on Eldridge North 

Community Association, Inc. v. Lakes on Eldridge North 

Community Association, Inc.; RealManage, LLC; Darla 

Kitchen; Don Byrnes; Michael Ecklund; Laura Vasallo Lee; 

John Kane; Julie Ann Bennett; Rick Hawthorne; Cara Davis; 

Christi Keller; Jim Flanary; Jill Richardson; Neil McLaurin; 

and Walter Spears

Appellate case number: 01-14-00216-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-17221

Trial court: 234th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, Victor S. Elgohary, has filed a “Motion to Extend Time to Appoint a 

Replacement Mediator, Order All Parties to Mediation and Abate the Appellate 

Timelines.” We grant in part and deny in part.

In his motion, appellant informs the Court that the parties’ agreed-upon mediator, 

Judge Davie Wilson, is no longer able to mediate this case. Appellant therefore requests 

an extension of time for the parties “to locate and agree on a new mediator and file a new 

mediator’s report.” Appellant further requests “an abatement of the deadlines for the 

reporter’s record and the clerk’s record until 60 days after the mediation has concluded in 

order to mitigate costs while the parties attempt to mediate the dispute.” Finally, 

appellant requests that we “order that all parties along with their respective insurance 

carriers and attorneys be present at the mediation.”

To the extent that appellant seeks new deadlines related to mediation, we grant

the motion. The parties shall (1) file a completed “Parties’ Notification to Court of 

Mediator” with the Clerk of this Court within 15 days of the date of this order,

(2) conduct the mediation within 45 days of the date of this order, and (3) advise the 

Clerk of this Court in writing whether the parties did or did not settle the underlying 
dispute no later than two days after the conclusion of the mediation. Further, the 

mediator shall also advise the Court of the outcome of the mediation within two days 

after the conclusion of the mediation and shall file a completed “Appointment and Fee 

Report—Mediation” form with the Clerk of this Court.

To the extent that appellant seeks abatement of the deadlines for filing the 

reporter’s and clerk’s records, we informed the parties in our mediation referral order that 

“[n]othing in this order modifies the timetables in the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure.” Further, the appellate record is not required to be filed until July 11, 2014. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1(a). Accordingly, we deny the motion.

Finally, we deny appellant’s request that we order all parties and their insurance 

carriers and attorneys to “be present at the mediation.”

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 20, 2014
#### Otter & Co. *v.*Moses Greenwald.

Principa! and Surety — Liability of Commission Merchant.

The evidence was held Insufficient to authorize a judgment for plaintiff in an action against a commission merchant for failure to sell molasses consigned to him for the prevailing market price.

APPEAL PROM BARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 20, 1874.

*450
      *Porter, for appellants.*

*W. H. Botts, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

There is no eivdence in this case upon which to' base a judgment against the appellants. It is in proof that a good article of molasses was worth 75 cents per gallon at Louisville when the appellee forwarded his to appellants to be sold by them. This fact is admitted in the letter of appellants, as well as proven, by two witnesses. It is shown, however, by a witness or witnesses who were uncontra-dicted in any way, that the molasses was sold by these merchants for the best price that could be obtained in the market, and the cause of the failure to get more originated from the character of the packages or barrels in which the molasses was shipped. Oil barrels, wine casks, whisky barrels, etc., were used for the purpose and the proof is that there was much difficulty in selling it at any price. It was in the power of appellee to have shown otherwise if these statements were not true. This he had failed to do, and the evidence of appellants being uncontradicted in any particular, the judgment should have been for them.

The judgment of the court below is therefore reversed and cause remanded with directions to award to the appellants a new trial, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund VI, Ltd. at March 31, 1998, and its statement of income
for the three months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10Q of CNL Income Fund VI, Ltd. for the three months ended March 31,
1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,935,996<F2>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  425,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                   361,710
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      22,543,333
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,244,566
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,059,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,043,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,059,945
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               825,326
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  177,150
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,036,913
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,036,913
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,036,913
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F2>Cash balance includes $1,240,838 in restricted cash.
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund VI, Ltd. has an
unclassified balance sheet; therefore no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        




</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

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

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Innovative Solutions and Support, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), eachof the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

     1.     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

     2.     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

| By:                   | /s/ RAYMOND J. WILSON   |   |
|-----------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                  | RAYMOND J. WILSON       |
|                  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |
|                  |
| February 6, 2008 |
|                  |
|                  | /s/ JOHN C. LONG        |   |
|                  | JOHN C. LONG            |
|                  | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER |

 

February 6, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 4.35


 


Non-executive director
appointment letter – Ms Jillian S Segal


 


The Non-executive director appointment letter of Ms Jillian S Segal is
incorporated by reference to National Australia Bank Limited’s Annual Report on
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Commission on January 20, 2005
#### Edwd Howard vs Ship Duke

The Court being opened

The Libel etc was read in Court.

The Respondents Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court was Ent3 Accordingly the Court was adjourned untill Nine o Clock in the morning. And opened accordingly. And adjourned untill Wensday Next at Ten o Clock A. M. on Wensday the 31st of August the Court was opened His Honr the Dep: Judge the Plea: Martin Howard was Sworn in Court.

Accordingly the Court was adjourned untill further notice.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION

I, Glenn M. Dobbs, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Mines Management, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I am 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 annual report is being prepared; and

b.

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

c.

Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter 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 officers 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 registrants board of directors:

a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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.



/s/ Glenn M. Dobbs

_____________________________

Glenn M. Dobbs

President and Chief Executive Officer



Date: June 14, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheets and statements of income and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                    DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                                         SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                                                 2,726,943
<SECURITIES>                                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            119,276
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                               0
<PP&E>                                                                 4,564,913
<DEPRECIATION>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                         8,276,971
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                          0
<BONDS>                                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                                             6,207,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                           8,276,971
<SALES>                                                                  165,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                       3,133,672
<CGS>                                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                          1,936,259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                         265,945
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        1,197,413
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    1,197,413
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           1,197,413
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                               9.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                               9.44
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILMER ALONZO STANLEY HINDS, : 

Petitioner, : 

 : CIVIL ACTION 12-0462-KD-M 

v. : CRIMINAL ACTION 08-00135-KD-M 

 :

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 

Respondent. : 

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order issued on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Respondent, the United States of 

America, and against Petitioner Wilmer Alonzo Stanley Hinds.

DONE and ORDERED this the 12th day of October 2012.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cr-00135-KD-M Document 99 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

   
Independent Auditors' Consent
    

   
We consent to the use in this Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement No.
333-62947 of OpTel, Inc. on Form S-4 of our report dated October 14, 1997, on
the financial statements of OpTel, Inc., and of our report dated May 15, 1998 on
the financial statements of the Assets and Liabilities of ICS Communications,
LLC acquired by OpTel, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31, 1997, each
appearing in the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration Statement and of
our report dated October 14, 1997 relating to the financial statement schedules
appearing elsewhere in this Registration Statement
    

We also consent to the reference to us under the headings "Summary Consolidated
Financial and Operating Data", "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial and 
Operating Data" and "Experts" in such Prospectus.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

   
Dallas, Texas
October 7, 1998
move frontV 0
move frontH 2.5
move frontL 2.0
move Vsample 0.5
move Hsample1 5
move backL 2
move backL2 1.5
move autosampleGFrotation true
MONTANA 

http://mt.gov/dli/bsd/bc/pdf/wm_rules.pdf 

24.351.301 NIST HANDBOOK 130 - UNIFORM LAWS AND REGULATIONS 

(1) The bureau, with the advice and counsel of NIST, adopts the model 

regulations to provide accurate and adequate information on packages as to the 

identity and quantity of contents so that purchasers can make price and quantity 

comparison. The regulations are published in NIST Handbook 130, 2005 edition, 

part IV, subparts: 

(a) A, Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation; 

(b) B, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities; and 

(c) C, Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation. 

(2) A copy of NIST Handbook 130 can be obtained from the United States 

Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National 

Conference of Weights and Measures, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-0001.
Base Salaries and Annual Incentive Plan


 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  

							
	 Executive Officer    

	  	New Base Salary*

	  	2006 Annul Incentive Plan
Target Percentage**

	 
	 Jon A. Marshall
     President and
     Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	775,000	  	100	%
			
	 W. Matt Ralls
     Executive Vice President
     and Chief Operating Officer
	  	$	475,000	  	75	%
			
	 James L. McCulloch
     Senior Vice President
     and General Counsel
	  	$	355,000	  	65	%
			
	 Marion M. Woolie
     Senior Vice President,
     Operations
	  	$	345,000	  	65	%
			
	 Roger B. Hunt
     Senior Vice President,
     Marketing
	  	$	345,000	  	65	%



	*	These base salaries do not go into effect until January 1, 2006. 


	**	Expressed as a percentage of annual base salary.
#### Sk Mahbubur RAHMAN, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 97-71264.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2001.1

Decided March 22, 2001.

Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Sk Mahbubur Rahman, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. *431§§ 1158(a) and 1253(h). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a).3 We deny the petition for review.

We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of asylum and for substantial evidence factual determinations, including the determination that the applicant has not established eligibility for asylum. *Acewicz v. INS,*984 F.2d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir.1993). We will uphold the decision unless the evidence compels a contrary result. *Id.*We review de novo alleged due process violations in deportation proceedings. *Hartooni v. INS,*21 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1994).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Rahman did not present “credible, direct, and specific evidence” to support a reasonable fear of persecution on account of his political opinion. *See Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1428 (9th Cir.1995) (internal quotation omitted). Rahman did not “demonstrate that any reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that he has a well-founded fear of persecution.” *See id.*at 1431 (internal quotation omitted).

The BIA did not err by failing to address Rahman’s newly introduced facts in his notice of appeal and brief to the BIA. *See*8 C.F.R. § 3.2.

We are convinced that Rahman had an adequate opportunity to provide evidence and testimony to the IJ. *See Antonio-Cruz v. INS,*147 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir.1998) (stating that the Due Process Clause does not preclude an IJ from asking questions of witnesses).

Because Rahman failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. *See Ghaly,*58 F.3d at 1429.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publi*431cation and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

3

. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("HRIRA”) repeals 8 U.S.C. § 1105a and replaces it with a new judicial review provision to be codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252. *See*IIRIRA § 306(c)(1), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996), *as amended by*Act of Oct. 11, 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-302, 110 Stat. 3656. However, because the new review provision does not apply to petitioners whose deportation proceedings commenced before April 1, 1997, we continue to have jurisdiction over the instant petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. *See*IIRIRA § 309(c)(1).