alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
William Grosshandler

Building and Fire Research Labo

National Institute of Standards and Tec

U.S. Department of Commerce

William.Grosshandler@NIST.gov

National Construction Safety Team Inve

National Construction Safety Team Inve

The Station Nightclub Fi

The Station Nightclub Fi

NCST Advisory Committee

June 22-23, 2004
Overview Overview

Rationale to conduct NCST investigation• Rapid spread of fire and smoke requires technical in

determine how life safety features of building failed evacuation time, leading to 100 fatalities.

• Potential exists to mitigate future building failures lik

changes in building practices and/or building standaregulations.

• Technical competencies required for successful inv

available at NIST and its community, and no local o

with equivalent analytical quality exists.

• Funds on hand are sufficient to conduct an investig
Elements of NIST Technical Investigatio

• Establishment of initial conditions• Simulation of thermal and tenability environment• Testing and validation experiments to support sim• Examination of possible impact of sprinklers• Documentation of evacuation process• Documentation of emergency response• Recommendations for specific improvements to m

standards, codes and practices

Overview Overview
Recent activities:

• Contract reports submitted on Model Building & Fire Code

(Koffel) and on Analysis of Egress (Arup)

• NIST has received the cooperation of RI AG’s Office in ge

important information, including data obtained by ATF on polyurethane foam recovered from site.

• Detailed timeline of egress from fire has been assembled

together regarding fire department response.

• Temperature, heat release and concentration data taken 

recreations (w & w/o sprinklers) have been reduced and a

• FDS has been run and compared to measurements in rea• NIST SP 1000-101 published: "Fire Spread Through a Roo

Foam Covered Walls."

Overview Overview
6/22/04

• Overview - W. Grosshandler6/23/04• Egress study, and review of model building and fire 

W. Grosshandler

• Documentation of emergency response - K. Kuntz

• Testing and validation experiments to support simu

• Simulation of fire and smoke movement in laborato

D. Madrzykowski

Presentation Outline Presentation Outline
CERTIFICATION*


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Vineyard National Bancorp (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30,
      2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), the undersigneds hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      to the undersigneds’ best knowledge and belief:





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





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





Dated
      this 17th day of November, 2008





Vineyard
      National
      Bancorp


("Company")








/s/ Glen
      C.
      Terry


Glen
      C.
      Terry


President
      and Chief Executive Officer








/s/
      Gordon
      Fong


Gordon
      Fong


Executive
      Vice President and Chief
      Financial Officer





___________________





*
A
      signed original of this written
      statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
      be
      retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
MEP	Regional	Forum	– Attendee	List

San	Francisco,	CA

October	16,	2015

First	Name Last	Name Organizations

Michael Ammann San	Joaquin	Partnership

Jose Anaya El	Camino	College

John Anderson CMTC

Bill Browne Manex

Patti Castro Alameda	County	Workforce	Investment	

Board

Patrick Dempsey Lawrence	Livermore	National	Laboratory

James Gardner East	Bay	Advanced	Manufacturing	

Partnership

Diane Henderson NIST	MEP

Josh Huber Contra	Costa	Economic	Partnership

Wayne Inouye Innovate	Hawaii

Robert Meyer

State	of California	– Employment	Training	

Panel

Glyn Milburn City	of	Los	Angeles

Kari Reidy NIST	MEP

David Roach Made	in	San	Francisco

Matthew Sanford San	Diego	EDC

Cheryl Slobodian CMTC

Kate Sofis SFMade

Greg Theyl East	Bay	Biomedical	Manufacturing	Network

Mark Troppe NIST	MEP

Jim Watson CMTC

Tab Wilkins NIST	MEP
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 18, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40934 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTHONY QUINN DUCKETT, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-173-16

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appointed counsel for Anthony Quinn Duckett has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Duckett has filed a response in which he raises claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of Duckett’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987).No. 06-40934 -2- Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Duckett’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH C IR . R. 42.2.
11621.

#### Lanier *v.*The State.

Decided Judy 28, 1920.

Conviction of seduction; from Bulloch, superior court—Judge Lovett. May 15, 1920.

Paragraph 1 of the decision relates to the following extract from the charge of the court; “The test of a virtuous woman, under this law, is whether she had, at the time of the alleged seduction, had sexual intercourse with another man; that is to say, with a man other than the defendant on trial. If she had, she was not a virtuous female. If she had not, she was a virtuous female.” The court, after charging that before the jury could convict the accused, it must be shown that the person named in the indiet*546ment as having been seduced was a virtuous unmarried female, instructed them as follows: “A ‘virtuous unmarried female means a woman of physical purity, a virgin, a woman who has never had sexual intercourse, and does not mean a woman with an entirely pure mind and heart. Physical chastity, not moral or intellectual chastity, is the test by which to determine a woman’s virtue at the time of her seduction. However, if you find in this case any evidence of a debauched mind of the female alleged to have been seduced, — if there is any evidence in this case of a lewd and lascivious nature on her part, or like testimony, ■—■ you may consider such testimony in determining whether the female had parted with her virginity before the alleged seduction and was not at that time a virtuous female within the contemplation of the statute.” Then followed the language of the extract first quoted, and the court added: “Unmarried females who are virgins are virtuous, and those who by their own consent have ceased to be virgins are not virtuous. You should estimate the woman alleged to have been seduced, as a virtuous female, in this case, unless the evidence directly, or circumstances, show and satisfy you that, she had lost her virtue prior to the alleged seduction, by having illicit intercourse.”

*545Luke, J.

1. The excerpt from the charge of the court complained of, when considered in the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case; contains no reversible error.

2. The evidence in the ease was conflicting. It was for the Jury, under proper instructions from the court, to credit the witnesses who testified before them. The jury believed the evidence for the State, which, if credited, authorized the verdict. Since the trial judge has approved that verdict, and there being no errors of law on the trial of the ease, this court can not set the verdict aside.

3. The alleged newly discovered evidence and the counter-showing thereto were heard by the trial judge. This court can not say that it was error, upon the ground of the newly discovered evidence, for the court to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*

*546
      *Deal & Renfroe, F. T.*Lanier, for plaintiff in error.

*Walter F.*Grey, *solicitor-general, R. Lee Moore,*contra.
EXHIBIT 99.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the
three month period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the
Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of his knowledge and belief:



| | (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 result of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial Officer May 9, 2003
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8) pertaining to the Associated Materials Incorporated Employee Stock
Purchase Plan of our report dated January 29, 1998, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Associated Materials Incorporated included
in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


<TABLE>
<S>                                <C>  <C>
                                   /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas

September 14, 1998
</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2


        CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
                             (FURNISHED, NOT FILED)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Black Warrior Wireline Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald
Whitter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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/ Ronald Whitter
------------------------------------
Ronald Whitter
Chief Financial Officer
August 15, 2005
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1




                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-15911 and 333-19773 of Dynamex Inc. on Forms S-3 and S-8, respectively, of
our report dated November 4, 1998, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Dynamex Inc. for the year ended July 31, 1998.




DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Dallas, Texas
November 4, 1998
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                           SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Microvision, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)  the Company's Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 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 Company's Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| |  | /s/ALEXANDER Y. TOKMAN
    Alexander Y. Tokman
    Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 30, 2010

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED APRIL 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,118,019
<SECURITIES>                                    64,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,161,873
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,000
<INVENTORY>                                    757,492
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,121,971
<PP&E>                                       6,616,434
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,867,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,953,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,075,999
<BONDS>                                        358,686
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    19,181,284
<OTHER-SE>                                (13,665,287)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,953,356
<SALES>                                      7,453,817
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,453,817
<CGS>                                        3,475,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,558,992
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,880,492
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,004,333
<INCOME-TAX>                                   133,692
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            985,119
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   870,641
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

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

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

|                                        |                                                     |                                     |
|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|  Dated:              February 14, 2007 |                                                          | /s/ WILLIAM              P. SPENCER |
|                                        | William P. Spencer Chief Executive Officer and President |

----
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4847

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 7, 2004

Received 

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 560 Bay Isles Road in Longboat Key, Florida, 

as the ‘‘Lieutenant General James V. Edmundson Post 

Office Building’’.

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

HR 4847 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 560 Bay Isles Road in Longboat Key, Florida, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lieutenant General 

5 James V. Edmundson Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Lieutenant General James V. Edmundson Post 

11 Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUSSELL ALLEN NORDYKE; ANN 

SALLIE NORDYKE, dba TS Trade

Shows; JESS B. GUY; DUANE DARR;

WILLIAM J. JONES; DARYL N.

DAVID; TASIANA WESTYSCHYN; JEAN

LEE; TODD BALTES; DENNIS BLAIR,

R.L. ADAMS; ROGER BAKER; MIKE No. 07-15763

FOURNIER; VIRGIL MCVICKER, D.C. No.

Plaintiffs-Appellants,  CV-99-04389-MJJ

v. ORDER

MARY V. KING; GAIL STEELE;

WILMA CHAN; KEITH CARSON;

SCOTT HAGGERTY; COUNTY OF

ALAMEDA; COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Filed July 29, 2009

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it

is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit

Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as

precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Rawlinson did not participate in the deliberations or

vote in this case.

10273
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
NIST Cybersecurity RFI

Kevin J. Slonka, Sc.D. 

Information Technology Architect

Sourceree (https://www.sourceree.com)

1. Please update the use of the term “cybersecurity” across the federal government to be

two words: cyber security. The term “cyber” stands alone, as demonstrated by your

many documents where you use it as a modifying noun: cyber supply chain, cyber

software engineer, etc. You never create compound words in any other case

(cybersupply chain, cybersoftware engineer, etc.) so why do you do it in the case of 

cyber security? It is grammatically incorrect and should be fixed.

2. Regarding the generality of the framework it is safe to say that there are too many

frameworks and too little direction. CSF, 800-171, 800-53, RMF, HIPAA (800-66),

CMMC, ISO, HITRUST, PCI, etc. Unless you’re an organization that is required by law to

adhere to one of them, it’s too confusing. As an MSP, we have to deal with many of 

them at the same time because of the wide range of clients we support and it’s 

ridiculous. But if you’re a random business that isn’t legally obligated to adhere to a 

specific framework, which do you choose to use on your own? NIST would like to say

that companies should choose CSF, but why would they? From a business owner

perspective, why wouldn’t you want your business to be just as secure as companies 

that deal with the government? In that case, you’d choose 800-171 or CMMC. From my

(a cyber professional) perspective, CSF is missing some key elements that I believe every

business should implement. CMMC contains these elements (even more so in its 1.0

version). So what should NIST do: keep the CSF incomplete or add those elements,

effectively making CSF exactly the same as CMMC? In such a case, why should CSF even 

exist? Just tell people to use CMMC. Returning to the point of this section, there are

too many frameworks. 

3. Regarding the direction given in the framework, there is none. Unless you are an

experienced assessor/auditor, when a framework tells you “Suppliers and third party

partners of information systems, components, and services are identified, prioritized,

and assessed using a cyber supply chain risk assessment process” you throw your hands

up and quit. NIST’s answer is that companies are expected to understand that CSF is 

simply a framework and when it tells you to use a supply chain risk assessment process 

you are supposed to know to look for other NIST documents, finding 800-161, and use

that to guide you. First, most organizations would never make that connection. Second,

800-161 is 282 pages of yet another ridiculously difficult to understand framework that

the average business owner (nor his IT staff) would never be able to implement. Even

CMMC has this problem, but they began fixing it by offering “plain English” directions on

how a company would actually assess/implement each security control. Should CSF 

stick around this would be beneficial, especially from a supply chain perspective with 

NISTIR 8276 being made into a more formal, easy to use, document.