alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0426-KD-M

SANDRA BOGGAN, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the

issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this

Court. It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for

failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's Order.

DONE and ORDERED this March 17, 2010.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00426-KD-M Document 23 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.20

                               September 13, 2005

Ellen L.S. Koplow

     Re: Executive Employment Agreement between Ameritrade Holding Corporation
     ("Ameritrade") and Ellen L.S. Koplow, effective September 9, 2002 (the
     "Agreement")

Dear Ellen:

     Your Agreement has a term ending on September 9, 2005. You and Ameritrade
have agreed to extend the Term of your Agreement for a twelve month period to
September 9, 2006. All of the rights and obligations will continue in full force
and effect through September 9, 2006. For purposes of clarification only, any
right to renew the Agreement was satisfied by the Renewal of the Agreement
effective September 9, 2004 and there is no right to renew the Agreement further
unless agreed upon by both parties in writing, as evidenced by a document
similar to the one herein being signed. Accordingly, Section 6 (e) (vi) of the
Agreement is fully satisfied and is no longer in effect.

     Please indicate your agreement to this extension by signing the letter in
the space below and return one fully signed letter to me. We will countersign
and provide you a copy for your records.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION


                                        By: /S/ JOE H. MOGLIA
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Joe H. Moglia
                                            Chief Executive Officer


Understood and Agreed


/S/ ELLEN L.S. KOPLOW
-------------------------------------
Ellen L.S. Koplow
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                        GRANITE BROADCASTING CORPORATION
                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                                 Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                ------------------------------
                                                     1997            1996
                                                --------------  --------------
                                                         (Unaudited)
<S>                                             <C>             <C>
Primary:
 
Average shares of common stock
 outstanding                                        8,735,879       8,464,012
                                                  ===========     ===========
 
Loss before extraordinary item                    $(4,956,772)    $(3,453,953)
Extraordinary loss on early
 extinguishment of debt                              (320,804)     (3,510,152)
                                                  -----------     -----------
 
Net loss                                          $(5,277,576)    $(6,964,105)
                                                  ===========     ===========
 
Net loss attributable to common stockholders      $(9,474,380)    $(7,845,424)
                                                  ===========     ===========
 
Per common share:
 Loss before extraordinary item                   $     (1.05)    $     (0.51)
 Extraordinary loss on early
   extinguishment of debt                               (0.04)          (0.42)
                                                  -----------     -----------
 Net loss                                         $     (1.09)    $     (0.93)
                                                  ===========     ===========
 
 
Fully Diluted:
 
Average shares of common stock
 outstanding                                        8,735,879       8,464,012
                                                  ===========     ===========
 
Loss before extraordinary item                    $(4,956,772)    $(3,453,953)
Extraordinary loss on early
 extinguishment of debt                              (320,804)     (3,510,152)
                                                  -----------     -----------
 
Net loss                                          $(5,277,576)    $(6,964,105)
                                                  ===========     ===========
 
Net loss attributable to common stockholders      $(9,474,380)    $(7,845,424)
                                                  ===========     ===========
 
Per common share:
 Loss before extraordinary item                   $     (1.05)    $     (0.51)
 Extraordinary loss on early
   extinguishment of debt                               (0.04)          (0.42)
                                                  -----------     -----------
 Net loss                                         $     (1.09)    $     (0.93)
                                                  ===========     ===========
 
</TABLE>
Request: Position Papers on Standards and Guidelines to Enhance Software Supply Chain 

Security 

NowSecure Response #1 - “Criteria for designating critical software” 

NowSecure, Inc. (parent company viaForensics, LLC) 

1608 Spring Hill Rd, Ste 200, Vienna VA, 22182 

NowSecure has 12 years in mobile app forensics, mobile app security testing, test automation, 

mobile pen testing and mobile security standards development. 

Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 Contributors: 

Submitted by: Alan Snyder, CEO - asnyder@nowsecure.com 

Jeff Miller, Director US Public Sector - Andrew Hoog, Founder -

jmiller@nowsecure.com ahoog@nowsecure.com 

Gentry Sims, Director Fed Bus Dev - Brian Reed, CMO - breed@nowsecure.com 

gsims@nowsecure.com Brendan Hann, PMM - bhann@nowsecure.com 

NowSecure recommends that “mobile applications” be addressed as a specific and distinct 

category of “critical software” in the standards definition process because: 

● Mobile Applications now account for approximately 70% of ALL digital time spent online 

across web and mobile browsers and applications, according to research data from 

CommScore. 

● Mobile Application architecture and risk profiles are very different from web and desktop 

applications. The security and testing standards must take into account their unique 

characteristics and mobile OS dependencies. 

● Mobile Applications have significant risks with potential for sensitive data leakage 

including geolocation tracking, access/transmit/store PII, access to adjacent 

apps/services (SMS text messages, call logs, contact database, browsing history, and 

ability to manipulate data for negative outcomes. 

● Other standards groups have recognized that mobile, web and desktop apps are 

different from security and risk perspectives and therefore created specific security 

standards for mobile apps, including MITRE with the MITRE Mobile ATT&CK Framework 

and OWASP with the OWASP Mobile Top 10 and OWASP MASVS, and NIAP with the 

Mobile App Protection Profile. 

● Mobile applications are the primary interface for IOT devices, of which a subset are a 

part of critical software in use by Government agencies. The ioXt alliance certification 

standard for IoT-connected mobile apps and mobile VPNs have been built leveraging 

the OWASP MASVS with refinements as needed to fit specific IoT and VPN 

requirements. 

In order to speed the creation, delivery, and adoption of new security standards based on the 

Executive Order, NowSecure recommends leverage the existing OWASP MASVS Standard 

with a focus on automation as foundation for any new security testing standards. Please see 
 

 

question #4 and Response #4 for deeper detail on an effective approach to address creation of 

new standards leveraging existing OWASP MASVS for the purposes of this project.
Federal Building and Fire Safety Inves

of the World Trade Center Disas

Building and Fire Research Labo

National Institute of Standards and Tec

U.S. Department of Commerce

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COM

ON 

ANALYSIS OF BUILDING AND F

AND PRACTICES

September 12, 2005

Richard Bukowski 

H. S. Lew 
Public Comments (Project #1) Public Comments (Project #1)

•

Number of comments received : 35

• Structures related –

1

3

• Fire related -

2

2
Public Comments (Project #1) Public Comments (Project #1)

•

Structures related –

1

3

• Substantive: 0• Clarification: 2• Editorial: 11
Public Comments (Project #1) Public Comments (Project #1)

Clarification 1: 

Why was the 2001 New York City Building Creferenced in code comparison instead of thContract for code comparison was issued becodes were published.

Clarification 2:

Commentary of Rec

ommendation 1 (a) impl

initiating events to be considered for progrescollapse mitigation design.Text has been modified to respond to this c
Public Comments on Project 1 Public Comments on Project 1

• 22 comments on fire• 20 editorial (incl. clarification) or terminology

• All comments considered, some changes made 

comments

• Largest change was the addition of 2 paragraph

modification of model codes and scope of build(ICC)

•

Added Section 10.2 on Requirements for a Fourth 

resolution occurred after public

ation of draft report

public comment)
##### 



Exhibit 31.2

I, Kay Carter, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal financial
officer) of Whitehall Limited, Inc. certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Whitehall Limited,
Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

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

4.     The registrants other certifying officers 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 we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly
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 that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's 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 (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

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: November 12, 2003

| |  |                                                  
| |  | -------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Kay Carter                                   
| |  |                                                  
| |  | Kay Carter, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**     I, Arthur S. Rosten, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMDL, Inc.     2. Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis annual report;     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the small business issuer and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annualreport based on such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date: November 14, 2005   /s/ Arthur S. Rosten Arthur S. Rosten  Chief Financial Officer
Order filed September 28 , 2021.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00520

- CV

IN RE RYAN ZIMMERMAN , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 309th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 62926



### O RDER

On September 1 5 , 2021 , relator Ryan Zimmerman filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compe l the Honorable Linda Dunson, presiding judge of the 309 t h District Court of Harris County , to set aside
its June 24 , 202 1, order holding relator in contempt for possession and access violations and failure to pay child support

.2

R elator’s a ppendix to his p etition for writ of mandamus contain s multiple
document s with unredacted sensitive information of relator ’s minor child ren

. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.9(a) (3). Parties are required to redact all sensitive information in
documents filed in this court unless the inclusion of the sensitive data is specifically r equi r ed by a statute, court rule, or administrative regulation. Id. 9.9(b). There is no statute, court rule, or administrative regulation requiring the
inclusion of sensitive data.
Accordingly, we ORDER relator to redact all sensitive information from the
do c uments included with his appendix to the petition and refile them in this court
on or before October 1 , 2021. Relator ’ s f ailure to comply with this order will
result in the denial of relator ’ s petition.

PER CURIAM

P anel c onsists of Justices Wise, Bourl iot, and Zimmerer.
11400.

#### Mitchell *v.*The State.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Indictment for possession of intoxicating liquor; from Muscogee superior court — Judge Howard. February 21, 1920.

It was testified that in the back of the defendant’s car, which he was driving, a jug of whisky was found, without anything *323wrapped around it. In his statement at the trial he said that a named person, whom he had taken in the car, put a package in it,— "lifted up the apron and stuck this package in the back of the car,” that he paid no attention to it, and that the person named saw officers coming down the street and jumped out of the car and ran, and the officers came to the car and got a jug out of it; and this was all he knew about it. Others testified that they saw the person mentioned by the defendant get out of the car and run.

*322Luke, J.

1. The conviction of the defendant in this case was not entirely dependent upon circumstantial evidence; indeed, the evidence was positive that he had in his possession alcoholic liquor. It is not error for the court to fail to charge the law of circumstantial evidence without request therefor, unless a conviction of the defendant is wholly dependent upon circumstantial evidence.

2. The court did not err in charging the jury that in misdemeanor cases all who participate are principals. This charge was required, if for no other reason, by the defense set up by the defendant. To have failed so to charge would have been error.

3. The evidence authorized the verdietj which has the approval of the trial judge. Bor no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

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

*323
      *R. Terry,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. F. McLaughlin, solicitor-general,*contra.
Filed 11/6/15 Rosenberg v. Reid CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SHERYL ROSENBERG,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

BRIGETTE REID,

Defendant and Respondent.

B262854

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BP140257)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Clifford L. Klein, Judge. Affirmed.

Greenberg Traurig and Frank E. Merideth, Jr. for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Loeb & Loeb, Gabrielle A. Vidal, Rachel J. Harris, and Amy L. Koch for

Defendant and Respondent.

_____________________
2

DISPOSITION

By stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, the order awarding 

Defendant and Respondent Brigette Reid attorney fees in the amount of $30,222.50 is 

summarily affirmed. Reid is entitled to costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

JONES, J.*

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

ALDRICH, J.

 

*

Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
EXHIBIT
32.1




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 Quarterly Report of Magnitude Information Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the "Form
10-Q"), I, Rudolf Hauke, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, as of
the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of myknowledge, that the
Company's Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Form 10-Q, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  November
      14, 2009
            /s/  Rudolf
  HaukeRudolf
      HaukePresident and Chief Executive
Officer
#### Johnson *v.*Kilgore.

Pleading.—Complaint.—An. allegation in a’complaint, that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff,” is sufficient to show that the debt is due and unpaid.'

APPEAL from the Grant Common Pleas.

Downey, J.

Complaint by the appellee against the appellant, as follows: “Joseph Kilgore complains of Jesse Johnson, defendant, and says-that .said defendant is indebted to him in the sum of six hundred dollars for work done and labor performed and materials furnished, a bill of particulars of which is filed herewith. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment for seven hundred dollars and other proper relief.” It has the proper caption, is signed by counsel, and accompanied with a bill of particulars.

The only question presented to this court is as to the sufficiency of the complaint. It is objected that it is bad, because it does not aver that the debt is due and unpaid. Both of these, we presume, are embraced in the allegation that “ the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff.” The complaint is substantially according to the form published in the statute, 2 G. & H. 376, No. 11, and these-forms are expressly declared to be sufficient. 2 G. & H. 373, sec. 1.

*148*y. Brownlee*and *H. Brownlee,*for appellant.

*I. Van Devanter*and *y F. McDowell,*for appellee.

The judgment is affirmed, with ten per cent, damages and costs.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                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 Historic Preservation Properties 1989
LP ("HPP'89") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report")
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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 HPP'89.


/s/ Robert Gunn
-------------------------------------
Robert Gunn
Asset Manager
(Performing similar functions of
Financial Officer)

Date: November 14, 2005