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

COMPARISON

CENTER

Provide near real-time 

analytic tools to 26 

Public Safety Orgs.

Create a “live” dynamic 

master data set

Provide data tools and 

frameworks to PSOs, 

industry and academia

Create a community of 

mentor departments

1

2

3

4

OBJECTIVES

MILESTONES

APPROACH

IMPACT

PROBLEM STATEMENT

CAD RMS EPCR

Data Shipping Application

Remote PSO Data Center

Node.js

Servers

Node.js

Workers

Node.js

Servers

Data

Warehouse Raw Data

Archive

Internet Analysts &

Data Scientists

Ingest API Enrichment Services

DATA COMPARISON CENTER

Analysis and

Checkout API

Integration for 

PSO Systems 

Dynamic Data 

Warehouse

Real-time Analysis 

Tools for PSOs

The Fire Service has been slow to adopt data driven decision making

• PSOs collect large amounts of data but are limited in control 

 and application of data

• Data and systems are single function/single jurisdiction

• Over-reliance on consultant-based, manual analysis

• Lack of a master data set of real-world data

• Limited and slow adoption of analytical tools such as big data 

 and predictive analytics

The Western Fire Chiefs Association, and Intterra, in partnership 

with Public Safety Organizations from the WFCA, will develop, 

deploy, and manage both a framework to integrate disparate PSO 

systems with real-time analysis and a Data Comparison Center (DCC) 

which will provide participating PSOs, PSCR, the fire service, and 

academia with a dynamic, expanding warehouse of fire service 

response and outcome data (see figure above). The combination of 

DCC and an integrated data framework will provide comparative 

analytics and analysis to support near-term and long-term 

improvements in fire response, as well as real-time decision making 

tools.

Year 1

• Onboard New PSOs 

• Ingest data into DCC

• DCC ‘Data Checkout’ API

• Year 1 Comparative 

 Metrics Deployment

• Year 1 Visioning Summit

Year 2

• Onboard Additional PSOs

• Year 2 Comparative 

 Metrics Deployment

• Year 2 Visioning Summit

PSOs get capability on Day 1

 • Situational Awareness

 • Performance Assessment

 • Response Planning and Execution

Improved joint operations across PSOs

Community-wide data driven decisions

 • Expanding cadre PSOs

 • Wider access for research and analysis
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1563 

To prohibit contributions to the United Nations Human Rights Council, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2023 

Mr. ROY (for himself, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mrs. 

BOEBERT, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. SELF, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Ms. GREENE of 

Georgia, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. MILLER of Ohio, Mr. LOUDERMILK, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, Mr. HUDSON, and Mr. STEUBE) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit contributions to the United Nations Human 

Rights Council, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘No taxpayer funding 

5 for United Nations Human Rights Council Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi8 sion of law, the Secretary of State— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1563 IH

1 (1) shall withhold from a United States con2 tribution each fiscal year to a regular budget of the 

3 United Nations an amount that is equal to the per4 centage of such contribution that the Secretary de5 termines would be allocated by the United Nations 

6 to support the United Nations Human Rights Coun7 cil; and 

8 (2) may not make any voluntary contributions 

9 to the United Nations Human Rights Council. 

10 (b) RESCISSION.—On the date the Secretary of State 

11 withholds funds pursuant to this section, such funds are 

12 rescinded and shall not be considered arrears to be repaid 

13 to any United Nations Entity. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRACY G. ALLEN, AIS # 129732, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0838-CG-M

DR. ROBERT BARNES, :

Defendant. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action is hereby DISMISSED

without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of March, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00838-CG-M Document 5 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of DirectorsRuby Tuesday, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-32697,  333-03165,  33-20585, 333-39321,  333-03157,  33-70490,  333-03153,  33-46220, 33-56452,  333-03155,  333-77965,
 333-88879,  333-39231, 333-100738 and 333-122124) on Form S-8 and (No.  33-57159) on Form S-3 of Ruby Tuesday,  Inc. and  subsidiaries of
 our report  dated  July 7,  2004,  except as to Note 12,  which is as of July 14,  2004 and Note 2, which is as of
 April 18, 2005,  with respect to the  consolidated  balance sheets of Ruby Tuesday,  Inc. and  subsidiaries  as of
 June 1,  2004 and June 3,  2003,  and the related  consolidated  statements  of income,  shareholders  equity and
 comprehensive  income,  and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 1,  2004, and all
 related financial  statement  schedules,  which report appears in the June 1, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K/A of
 Ruby Tuesday, Inc.

As discussed  in Note 2 to the  consolidated  financial  statements,
 the Company has restated its consolidated financial statements for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 1, 2004.

/s/ KPMG LLPLouisville, KentuckyApril 26, 2005
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 02, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, March 02, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15I0129. RONNIE DRAWDY et al. v. MARY SASSER et al..
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 14CV0339
11139.

#### Happ Brothers Company *v.*Montgomery.

Decided March 18, 1920.

Appeal from Webster superior court — Judge Littlejohn. November 1, 1919.

*M. A. Walker,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. F. Souter,*contra.

Smith, J.

The motion for a new trial being based upon the general grounds only, and the evidence, though conflicting, being sufficient to support the verdict, this case falls within the well-settled rule that under such circumstances the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, will not be. controlled.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      15,293,896
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                177,947,131
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    481,085,040
<ALLOWANCE>                                  7,140,895
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             685,042,919
<DEPOSITS>                                 597,608,456
<SHORT-TERM>                                27,900,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          7,545,194
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,000,255
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,989,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             685,042,919
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             10,204,402
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,690,627
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               114,572
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            13,009,601
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           6,962,076
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,442,133
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,567,468
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  230,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              13,210
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,989,136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,692,282
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,692,282
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,812,282
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.508
<LOANS-NON>                                    163,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    78,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             6,947,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   36,000
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            7,141,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         6,318,849
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        822,046
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Sean M. Cary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc.

By:    /s/ Sean M. Cary
Name: Sean M. Cary
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LINDA L. CALHOUN, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 09-0417-CG-C

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, :

Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

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 recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated March 12, 2010 is ADOPTED as the

opinion of this Court.

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of March, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00417-CG-C Document 28 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 1
# IV Kenneth Clay, Petitioner,



### v. Hugh Smith, Respondent. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED JAN 2 92Ul0 Clerk, U.S. District and 8ankruptcy Courts 

# 10 (J172

Petitioner, proceedingpro se, has submitted an application for a writ ofhabeas corpus along with an application to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed informapauperis and will dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner is a Georgia state prisoner at the Dodge State Prison challenging a conviction entered by the Superior Court ofMuscogee County. Pet. at 2. Federal court review ofstate convictions is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only after the exhaustion ofavailable state remedies. See 28 U.S.c. §2254(b)(1). Thereafter, "an application for a writ ofhabeas corpus [] made by a person in custody under thejudgment and sentence ofa State court ... may be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced [petitioner] and each ofsuch district courts shall have concurrentjurisdictionto entertainthe application." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner has no recourse here. A separate Order ofdismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.**~** Date: January /.3,2010
**EXHIBIT 15**

To the Board of Directorsand Shareholder ofAllstate Life Insurance Company of New York:

We have reviewed, inaccordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(United States), the unaudited interim financial information of Allstate LifeInsurance Company of New York for the three-month and nine-month periods endedSeptember 30, 2006 and 2005, as indicated in our report dated November 6, 2006;because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that ourreport referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, is incorporated by reference inthe following Registration Statements:
| Form S-3 Registration Statement Nos. | ** ** | **Form N-4 Registration Statement Nos.** |
|--------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------|
| 333-58512                            |       | 033-65381                                |
| 333-100029                           |       | 333-68344                                |
|                                 |       | 333-81970                                |
|                                 |       | 333-94785                                |

 

We also are aware thatthe aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared orcertified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountantwithin the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

/s/Deloitte & ToucheLLP

Chicago, IllinoisNovember 6, 2006

E-2

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 2, 2015.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:

                    1.                     *S&T Bancorp, Inc.,*                     Indiana, Pennsylvania; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Integrity Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Integrity Bank, both in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.                

      ( print page 72683)    
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 3, 2014.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2014-28665 Filed 12-5-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Affiliate Members 

January 2024 

AFFILIATES

Anil Alexander 

Mark Becker 

Kevin Chan 

Ian Daft 

Kevin Farrell 

Alastair Gilroy 

Ellen Grand 

Sarah Hood 

James Horan 

Michael Jessen 

Colleen Kavanaugh 

Finnian Kelly 

Aaron Lawson 

 Jodie Linger 

Kenneth Marr 

Johanna Morley 

Mitchell McLaren 

Peter Milne 

John Nash 

Douglas Reynolds 

Jennifer Schroeder 

David van der Vloed 

James Wayman 

Jennifer Williams
11569.

#### LEATHERWOOD *v.*THE STATE.

Decided July 14, 1920.

Intent to kill will not, as a matter of law, be presumed from an attack with a deadly weapon, where death has not ensued; and on “a trial for the offense of assault with intent to murder the court should instruct the jury, in effect, that the burden is upon the State to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the alleged assault, if made by the defendant, was made with the specific intent to kill. The failure to give such an instruction in this case requires a new trial.

*485Indictment for assault with intent to murder; from Haralson superior court-—-Judge Irwin. April *22,*1920.

The indictment charged Leatherwood with an assault 'with intent to murder McClung by shooting at him with a shotgun; and the accused was convicted of that offense. McClung testified, that while he was in his house, between 11 and 12 o’clock at night, he heard the noise of his calf bleating and running, and went out on the veranda of the house to see what caused it, and the defendant, who was standing about six or eight feet from the veranda, pointed a double-barrel shotgun directly at him and shot, and the load from the gun struck a post between them and went into the side of the house. The defendant, by his statement at the trial and by the testimony of several witnesses, attempted to establish an alibi. One of the grounds of his motion for a new trial is that the court charged the jury as follows: “ If you believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant shot the prosecutor, McClung, with a weapon likely to produce death, you would be authorized to find him guilty.” It is alleged that this was error, because the court failed to charge the jury, in this connection or elsewhere, that in order to authorize a verdict of guilty of assault with intent to murder, the jury must believe, from the evidence, that the defendant shot with intent to kill McClung.

*J. M. McBride,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. R. Hutcheson, solicitor-general, Griffith & Matthews,*contra.

Luke, J.

The defendant was charged with the offense of assault with intent to murder. Error is assigned upon the judge’s failure to charge the jury that the evidence must be sufficient to satisfy them that the defendant shot with intent to kill. This assignment of error is well taken. Where death does not ensue, the intent to kill cannot be a matter of legal presumption* but must be discovered from the evidence. 'For this reason, in every trial for the offense of assault with intent to murder, the jury must be instructed, in effect, that the burden is upon the State to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the alleged assault, if made by the defendant, was made with the specific intent to kill. See *Gilbert*v. *State,*90 *Ga.*691 (16 S. E. 652); *Gallery*v. *State,*92 *Ga.*464 (2) (17 S. E. 863); *Wimberly*v. *State,*12 *Ga. App.*540, 542 (77 S. E. 879). The other alleged errors are such as *486will not likely recur on another trial. It was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00676-WS-B

WALTER MYERS, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file

deemed relevant to the issue 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 this 6th day of April, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00676-WS-B Document 9 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 1
11199.

#### Central of Georgia Railway Company *v.*Hartley.

Decided April 7, 1920.

Action for damages; from Washington superior court — Judge Hardeman. November 24, 1919.

The action was for damages on account of the death of the plaintiffs husband, a farmer 48 years of age. The verdict was for $15,000. There was evidence to the effect that he made about $2,200 a year net from his farm, that he was in good health and his services were worth that sum.

*W. M. Goodwin, Evans & Evans,*for plaintiff in error.

*Reuben R. Arnold, Jordan & Harris,*contra.

Jenkins, P. J.

This case is controlled in nearly every particular by the rulings this day made in *Central of Georgia Railway Co.*v. *Hartley,*ante, 110, -which was a suit by another plaintiff growing out of the same transaction. In the instant case the judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling the motion for continuance. Nor do we feel justified in holding that the amount of the verdict is excessive. Por none of the reasons assigned do we feel authorized to set the verdict aside.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY (the Company), hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|               |  |  |  |                                              
|-------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------
|               |  | 
|               |  |  |  | /s/    Jeffrey D. Serkes                     
|March 10, 2005 |  |  |  | Jeffrey D. Serkes Principal Financial Officer