alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Automatic Identification of Regions 

of Neutron Diffraction Patterns 

Changing During Phase Transition

Shriya Haravu

Mentor: Dr. William Ratcliff
Neutron Scattering

Powder

Sample

Neutrons

=

Scattering off of 

atoms/molecules

Wave Particle 

Duality

Detector

1
Neutron Scattering

Change in powder temperature

Change in powder structure

Change in powder diffraction pattern

2
3

Real diffraction pattern 

data for FeTe (Iron 

Telluride) taken at Oak 

Ridge National 

Laboratory 
Gaussian Mixture Modelling • Didn’t work • Stuck in Local Minima

4
Two – step approach

1. Finding peaks

2. Mapping peaks from different 

diffraction patterns to each other

5
Standard 

deviation

Amplitude

Position

f(x) = a exp −

x − b

2

2c

2

Step 1: Finding peaks

6
Bumps 

- DREAM

Software Package Developed by Paul Kienzle

Step 1: Finding peaks

Actual parameters 

Amplitudes: 100, 150, 101

Positions: 0, 15, 3

Standard Deviations: .05, .15, .15

7
8
Step 1: Finding peaks

9
Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC)

k = # of parameters n = number of data points L = maximum log-likelihood

Step 1: Finding peaks

χ2 = ( 1

D.O.F

) σ

O−E

2

E2

O = Observed data value

E = Expected data value

D.O.F = Degrees of Freedom

10
BIC plots

Low Temperature

High Temperature

11
Conclusions

• Fitting peaks first using probabilistic approach as opposed to mapping 

individual data points to each other directly seems more promising

• Summer Summary:

• We used Bumps + DREAM to fit peaks to simulated data

• We integrated code for automatically determining how many peaks to fit

In the process: 

• Learned to use CLI, GitHub

• Gained familiarity with modules

This Photo by Unknown 

Author is licensed under CC 

BY-SA-NC

12
Next Steps

• Testing on actual data/with more noise

• Improving Step 2 (Mapping)

• Generalizing from Powder to Crystal (1-D data to 2-D data)

13
Acknowledgements
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 16, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00296

- CR

Vincent Trevino GOMEZ Jr.,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR12346

The Honorable Jennifer Pena

, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due November 15, 2021. On November 15, 2021,

appellant filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief until January 14, 2022,

for a total extension of sixty days. After consideration, we GRANT the motion and ORDER

appellant to file his/her brief by January 14, 2022

.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed th e seal of the said

court on this 16th day of November, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
You can find the NIST Ransomware video and other SBCC videos at: 

https://www.nist.gov/itl/smallbusinesscyber/videos 

Ransomware 

What could be more terrifying to you, a small business owner, than to discover you are locked out of your own 

computers because you’ve been hit with ransomware. 

What is “Ransomware”? 

Ransomware is a type of malicious attack where attackers encrypt an organization’s data and demand payment to 

restore access. 

Here’s an example of how a ransomware attack can occur: 

1. A user is tricked into clicking on a malicious link that downloads a file from an external website. 

2. The user executes the file, not knowing that the file is ransomware. 

3. The ransomware takes advantage of vulnerabilities in the user’s computer and other computers to 

propagate throughout the organization. 

4. The ransomware simultaneously encrypts files on all the computers, then displays messages on their 

screens demanding payment in exchange for decrypting the files. 

Common ways ransomware can hit you: 

• Email – phishing emails can trick you into clicking on an attachment (“Urgent Invoice”) that allows the 

malicious software program to take over your computer. 

• Malware – if your network or software is vulnerable, a cybercriminal can sneak in and plant malicious 

code. It might sit unnoticed for a period of time, allowing the bad guys time to access files and steal data, 

then finishing up with unleashing ransomware so you can’t see the damage. 

Ransomware is a common threat against any business, large or small. It can put a company out of business or 

disrupt operations for a long period of time. Paying the ransom can be very expensive and there’s no guarantee 

that data will ever be recovered. If customer data is stolen, it may trigger state data breach notification laws. 

Ransomware disrupts or halts an organization’s operations and poses a dilemma for management: does the 

organization pay the ransom and hope that the attackers keep their word about restoring access, or does the 

organization not pay the ransom and restore operations themselves? 

Fortunately, organizations can take steps to prepare for ransomware attacks. This includes protecting data and 

devices from ransomware and being ready to respond to any ransomware attacks that succeed. 

Don’t assume your business is too small to get hit. The nature of ransomware is that the cybercriminals work to 

ensure their malware spreads as widely as possible, infecting the computers of individuals and businesses of all 

sizes.
10875.

#### Shale, trustee, *v.*Rourke, judge.

^royles, C. J.

1. It is the duty of counsel for the plaintiff in error to present to the presiding judge for his certificate a true bill of exceptions, and it is his further duty, where the judge refuses to certify the bill of exceptions tendered him but fails to give in writing his objections thereto, to request the judge to endorse upon the hill of exceptions his reasons for his refusal; and if the judge fails to do so, then the matter should be brought to the attention of this court. *Coleman*v. *Johnson,*45 *Ga.*317; *Vason*v. *Gardner,*70 *Ga.*517.

*285Decided October 14, 1919.

Application for mandamus.

*F. A. Tuten, W. B. tflubbs,*for petitioner.

2. Where the judge refuses to sign the bill of exceptions tendered him, and returns it to counsel for the plaintiff in error within ten days, without giving in writing the reasons for his refusal, but where he orally states them to counsel and he is not requested by counsel to put them in writing, and where further the judge, in conformity with the last provision of section 6158 of the Civil Code (1910), orders that notice be given to the opposite party of the fact and time of tendering the exceptions, and where the notice is given and a hearing is held, at which the judge again orally states his reasons for his refusal to certify the bill of exceptions, to wit, that it contains inaccurate and erroneous statements of the evidence, which are specifically pointed out by the judge, and where counsel for the plaintiff in error makes no effort to correct the bill of exceptions, but insists upon it being certified as tendered, the judge will not be required to sign the bill of exceptions.

*Mandamus absolute denied.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 10.4



Agreed terms document under the joint venture shareholders' agreement dated 14th
October 2005 among Baltic Petroleum (E&P) Limited, Siberian Energy Group Inc.
and Zauralneftegaz Limited

                                RELEASE OF PLEDGE

Siberian Energy Group Inc. ("SEG")
275 Madison Avenue
6th Floor
New York
NY 10016

9th November 2005

Dear Sirs

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF DISCHARGE OF SECURITY

We refer to the pledge and security agreement (the "PLEDGE") dated 28 April 2005
made  between  SEG  and  Baltic  Petroleum  ("BP") pursuant to which SEG granted
security  over  certain  assets  as  security  for  the  performance  of certain
obligations  of SEG to BP under the terms of a guarantee from SEG to BP dated 28
April  2005  (the  "GUARANTEE") and under an option agreement between BP and SEG
dated  28  April  2005  (the  "OPTION  AGREEMENT").

BP has pursuant to a deed of release  (the  "DEED")  dated today's date released
and discharged SEG of all obligations  under  the Guarantee. Further, the Option
Agreement (the "OPTION") has terminated  in  accordance  with  its  terms  as of
today's date and SEG has no further obligations  to  BP thereunder.

BP hereby acknowledges that the Secured Obligations (as defined in  the  Pledge)
have  been  released, discharged, cancelled and/or terminated and  therefore, in
accordance  with  section 9 of the Pledge, the security  interest  granted under
the Pledge has with effect from today's date terminated  and all rights to   the
Collateral (as defined in the Pledge) have reverted to SEG.

Yours faithfully

Baltic Petroleum Limited

PLEASE  SIGN,  DATE  AND  RETURN  TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS THE ATTACHED COPY OF THIS
LETTER AS ACCEPTANCE OF THE ABOVE.

Acknowledged for and on behalf of Siberian Energy Group Inc. by

Sign: /s/ David Zaikin
     --------------------------

Print Name: David Zaikin
           ------------------------

Date: November 9,2005


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEUDLE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
 STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION AT MARCH 31, 1997; STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
 THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997; AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS THREE MONTHS
 ENDED MARCH 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                       0000839759
<NAME>                      ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK
<MULTIPLIER>                1,000
<CURRENCY>                  U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           1,473,056
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     0
<MORTGAGE>                                     88,997
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 1,597,065
<CASH>                                         2,832
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             2,099
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         64,311
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,957,201
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 882,117
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          579,653
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2000
<OTHER-SE>                                     220,693
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,957,201
<PREMIUMS>                                     20,661
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            30,200
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (49)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 6,868
<BENEFITS>                                     41,966
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    1,970
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           4,826
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                8,918
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,209
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            5,709
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5,709
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0
        


</TABLE>
10889.

#### Hines, director-general, *v.*Wilson, by next friend.

Decided March 11, 1920.

Action for damages; from Henry superior court — Judge Searcy. August *2,*1919.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

*Harris, Harris & Witman, E. M. Smith, Paul Turner,*for plaintiff in error.

*Reagan & Reagan,*contra.

Smith, J.

• 1. The petition as amended was good as against both the general and special demurrers, and the court did not err in overruling the same.

2. *“*Every thoroughfare which is used by the public and is common to all the public, and which the public has the right to use, is a highway.” *Southern Ry. Co.*v. *Combs,*124 *Ga.*1004 (53 S. E. 508).

3. “ A highway may have its origin in a .legislative act, or in the order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or may come into existence by dedi-. cation or by prescription.” *Southern Ry. Co.*v. *Combs,*supra.

4. “ While in some particulars certain excerpts from the charge of the court which were assigned as error in some of the grounds of the motion for a new trial are subject to criticism, yet when the charges to which exceptions were taken are read in connection with the evidence and the entire charge, none of them contain errors requiring a reversal; nor are they of a character which renders their separate discussion necessary or beneficial. Mere space-consuming elaboration is not always necessary or desirable.” *Ferguson*v. *Westcott,*145 *Ga.*276 (1) (88 S. E. 932).

5. In view of the charge given by the court and in the light of the evidence, the court did not err in refusing to give the several instructions requested by the defendant.

6. Where a passenger in an automobile is injured by reason of the negligence of a railway company in failing to keep its crossing in repair, the mere fact that the vehicle has not been registered in the office of the secretary of State, and a license obtained, and a license fee paid as required by law (Ga. L. Ex. Sess. 1915, p. 107), will not render the person so injured a trespasser, and bar her right of recovery against the railway company for negligence. See *Central of Georgia Ry. Co.*v. *Moore,*149 *Ga.*581 (102 S. E. 168).

7. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in refusing to grant the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEITH STILL, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00652-WS-B

WARDEN KENNETH JONES, :

Respondent. :

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 with prejudice as time-barred.

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases,

“[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the

applicant.” Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases (December

1, 2009). "A certificate of appealability may issue only where “the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a habeas

petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, such as in the instant

case, without reaching the merits of any underlying constitutional

claim, “a COA should issue [only] when the prisoner shows...that

Case 1:09-cv-00652-WS-B Document 9 Filed 05/10/10 Page 1 of 2
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000); see

Miller -EL v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039,

154 L.Ed. 2d 931 (2003); Farris v. U.S., 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th

Cir. 2003)(“Without authorization, the district court lacks

jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition.”). Under

the facts of this case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude

either that this Court is in error in dismissing the instant

petition or that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S. Ct. at 1604. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that because reasonable jurists could not debate whether

Petitioner’s petition should be dismissed, he is not entitled to

a certificate of appealability. 

DONE this 10th day of May, 2010.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00652-WS-B Document 9 Filed 05/10/10 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARTHUR LEE MACK, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. CA 04-0813-BH-C

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security, :

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

denying plaintiff benefits be affirmed. 

DONE this 28th day of November, 2005.

 

s/ W. B. Hand

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00813-BH-C Document 21 Filed 11/28/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

                               TELVUE CORPORATION

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of TelVue Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Murphy,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the Company.


Date: May 15, 2008                      /s/ Joseph M. Murphy
                                        --------------------
                                        Joseph M. Murphy
                                        President (Chief Executive Officer)
#### E. R. Heck *v.*Northwestern Mfg. Co.

Bills and Notes — Accommodation Paper — Want of Consideration.

Where one who executed a note to enable a third person to> obtain money or property with it, and such object is accomplished by the third perspn, the maker cannot be allowed to plead want of consideration for its execution, nor set off against it, debts due him from such third person.

Bills and Notes — Defective Petition Cured by Answer.

A defect in a petition on a note, in failing to allege non-payment of the note, is cured by an answer which alleges its non-payment.

APPEAL FROM MUHLENRURG CIRCUIT COURT.

October 2, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

It is perfectly manifest that the note and mortgage were executed and delivered to enable Wilson to purchase the quartz mill from appellee. It is not to be believed that Heck executed and sent these papers to Wilson without knowing or having reason to know the use to which they were to be put. In fact, he admits that he knew that Wilson was in Chicago negotiating for the mill, and although he conveniently fails to remember the contents of Wilson’s letter, he states enough to show that the note and mortgage were in some way to advance the latter in his contemplated purchase of the mill. These facts, together with the further facts that Heck had sold off his personal property and was making preparations to remove to California, lead to the conclusion that the note and mortgage were used just as the parties intended they should be. It follows, there*144fore, that ITeck occupies the position of a party who had made and executed a note to enable a third party to obtain with it money, or property, the object having been accomplished, he can not be allowed to plead want of consideration for the execution, nor set off against the note debts due him from the party whom he sent out to negotiate it.

James, *for appellant.*

*Jas. Ricketts, for appellee.*

The plea in effect concedes the non-payment of the note; Hence, the defect in the petition in failing to allege that fact can not now be taken advantage of.

Judgment *affirmed.*
Exhibit 23




Consent of Independent Accountants



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus 
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-43655), to 
the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the 
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-28877), to the incorporation by 
reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on 
Form S-3 (No. 33-59573), to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-24952), to the incorporation by reference in the 
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-28096), to the incorporation by 
reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on 
Form S-3 (No. 33-32275), to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus 
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-55816), to 
the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the 
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-56739), to the incorporation by 
reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on 
Form S-3 (No. 333-14369), to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus 
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-14369-
01), to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting part of 
the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-17181), of our report dated 
February 4, 1999, appearing on page 57 of The Montana Power Company's Annual 
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998.  


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Portland, Oregon
March 30, 1999