alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32
 
 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 period ended June 30, 2004, 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 10th day of August, 2004.
 Vineyard National Bancorp("Company")/s/ *Norman A. Morales*Norman A. MoralesPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 /s/ *Gordon Fong*Gordon FongSenior 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.
11405.

#### White *v.*The State.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Indictment for obstructing process; from Upson superior court —-Judge Searcy. January 24, 1920.

*C. P. Goree, Philip Weltner,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. M. Owen, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. In all criminal eases the bill of exceptions must be tendered to the judge within twenty days from the date of the judgment complained of. Civil Code (1910), § 6153.

*(a)*In the instant case it does not appear that the bill of exceptions was tendered within the required time; it appears merely that it was tendered within *thirty*days from the date of the judgment excepted to. , Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court the writ of .error must be and is

*Dismissed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 10.2


 





 


Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.


 


1st Amendment to the Second
Amended and Restated Director Compensation Plan


 


(adopted April 29, 2015)


 


 


This 1st Amendment to the Second
Amended and Restated Director Compensation Plan is hereby adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Brainstorm
Cell Therapeutics Inc. (the “Corporation”) and amends the Second Amended and Restated Director Compensation Plan of
the Corporation dated July 9, 2014, with effect from the date of adoption by the Board, as follows:


 


The following new paragraph is hereby added
to the end of Section 6 of the Plan:


 


2015 Chairperson Special Award. The chairperson of the
Board of Directors of the Corporation serving in such capacity on the date of the adoption of the 1st Amendment to the
Second Amended and Restated Director Compensation Plan shall automatically be granted on June 1, 2015 (the “Special Award
Date”), a nonqualified stock option to purchase 6,667 shares of Common Stock (subject to appropriate adjustment in the case
of stock splits, reverse stock splits and the like) of the Corporation, governed by the terms and conditions of a stock option
agreement substantially in a form previously approved by the Board, and subject to all the terms and conditions of the Plan and
the 2014 Global Share Option Plan, at an exercise price per share of the Common Stock equal to $0.75 per share of the Common Stock
on the Special Award Date, which option shall be fully vested and exercisable on the date of grant (the “2015 Chairperson
Special Award”). For the avoidance of doubt, this is a one-time award made only to the chairperson serving on the Special
Award Date and not a recurring grant. The 2015 Chairperson Special Award shall be in addition to any Chair Option Award or Chair
Stock Award set forth in Section 2 above or any Annual Award, Committee Award or Committee Chairperson Award (under Sections 3,
4 or 5, respectively), to which such chairperson may be entitled.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0677-CG-C 

WALTER MYERS, 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. 

DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of June, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00677-CG-C Document 12 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 1
NIST Gaithersburg

February 12, 2020

Priorities for the ADLP and NIST 

Laboratory Programs

Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology 

James Olthoff

Associate Director for Laboratory Programs
NIST Programmatic Priorities

Advanced 

Manufacturing Cybersecurity Disaster Resilience

Quantum 

Science

Engineering 

Biology

Artificial 

Intelligence

Internet of 

Things

Technology 

Transfer

Documentary 

Standards

© Matt DeLorme

Measurement 

Dissemination

National Needs NIST Functions

Emerging Technologies
Engineering Biology

Advanced Communications/5G

Quantum Science

NIST Priorities: Advance U.S. Technological Leadership 

in the Industries of the Future

Artificial Intelligence

AI-enabled measurement systems to 

support wide deployment of 5G wireless 

technologies, Participating and leading in 

5G standards development

Living Systems Foundry for safe, 

predictable design and control of 

biological systems

Leading efforts to prioritize and address key 

AI standards needs while developing 

training and testing tools for research 

domains from materials science to robotics 

New quantum networking grand challenge will 

build on NIST world-leading science, while 

NIST expands industry partnerships in the 

Quantum Economic Development Consortium

Advanced Manufacturing

Providing technical support and key 

infrastructure to the nation’s 

manufacturing industries as they strive to 

out-innovate global competitors

NIST will continue to expand research 

efforts in these five areas and work to 

strengthen U.S. engagement in 

standardization efforts
NIST Focus Areas

Definition of a Focus Area: 

The purpose of a focus area is to clearly articulate to internal and 

external stakeholders what is being accomplished in support of the 

unique mission and role of NIST. The focus areas are intended to be 

forward-looking, impactful, and an expression of shared goals by 

leadership and staff. A focus area requires an increased concentration 

of resources, and represents a commitment of NIST leadership to 

achieve clearly defined goals. 
Engineering Biology

Quantum Science

Artificial Intelligence

Build and deploy a Living 

Measurement Systems 

Foundry.

Launch AI Data Center.

Internet of Things

Focus on Industrial Internet 

of Things.

NIST Focus Areas: Grand Challenges

Demonstrate a 2-node 

quantum network.
DISCUSSION
EXHIBIT 32.2


        CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Black Warrior Wireline Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2003 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 14, 2003
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4802 

To require information on railroad tank cars containing hazardous materials 

to be available to first responders. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2004 

Mr. MEEHAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require information on railroad tank cars containing 

hazardous materials to be available to first responders. 

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 ‘‘Responsible Railroads 

5 Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

7 Chapter 51 of title 49, United States Code, is amend8 ed— 

9 (1) in section 5111— 
2 

•HR 4802 IH 

1 (A) by inserting ‘‘(a) AIR BRAKE EQUIP2 MENT.—’’ before ‘‘A rail tank car’’; and 

3 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

4 subsection: 

5 ‘‘(b) INFORMATION FOR FIRST RESPONDERS.— 

6 ‘‘(1) PROHIBITION.—No rail tank car con7 taining hazardous materials may be transported or 

8 stored on rail tracks that are part of or connected 

9 to the general system of railroad transportation un10 less information identifying the tank car, the haz11 ardous materials within such tank car, and response 

12 guidance is immediately available to local first re13 sponders in each location where the tank car may be 

14 located. Such information shall be provided through 

15 the Operation Respond Institute’s technology or 

16 similar technology. Each day in which a tank car is 

17 transported or stored in violation of this paragraph 

18 shall constitute a separate violation. 

19 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary of Transpor20 tation may provide an exception to the prohibition 

21 under paragraph (1) if no data base exists through 

22 which the requirement can be met.’’; and 

23 (2) in section 5124, by adding at the end the 

24 following: ‘‘This section shall not apply to a violation 
3 

•HR 4802 IH 

1 of section 5111(b) or a regulation prescribed or 

2 order issued under such subsection.’’. 

3 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

4 The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect 

5 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Midwest Mezzanine Fund V SBIC, L.P. License No. 05/05-0318]

                    Notice is hereby given that Midwest Mezzanine Fund V SBIC, L.P., 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3650 Chicago, IL 60603, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107). Midwest Mezzanine Fund V SBIC, L.P., proposes purchasing subordinated debt and equity financings provided to Currie                           ( print page 74154)                        Medical Specialties, Inc. of 8758 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Denison Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of One Power Hill Road, Lincoln, RI 02865, Packaging Concepts & Design, LLC of 1307 I Allen Drive, Troy, Mi 48083, Uncle Milton Industries, Inc. of 29209 Canwood Street, Suite 120, Agoura Hills, CA 91301, and Vapor Power International, LLC of 551 South County Line Road, Franklin Park, IL 60131. The financings Midwest Mezzanine Fund V SBIC, L.P. seeks to purchase are held by Midwest Mezzanine Fund V, L.P.                

These financings are brought within the purview of § 107.730(d) of the Regulations because Midwest Mezzanine Fund V SBIC, L.P. and Midwest Mezzanine Fund V, L.P. Partners II SBIC, L.P. are Associates. Therefore this transaction requires prior SBA exemption.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.

Javier E. Saade,

Associate Administrator for Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2014-29271 Filed 12-12-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 10.1


 


Heritage Property Investment Trust, Inc.


 


Schedule of
Non-Employee Director Compensation(1)


 


	
  Annual Retainer

  	
   

  	
  $30,000

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Board/Committee Meeting Fees

  	
   

  	
  $1,500 (per meeting attended)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Lead Director Retainer

  	
   

  	
  $25,000

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Committee Chair Retainer

  	
   

  	
  Audit Committee: $10,000

  Compensation Committee: $6,000

  Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee: $4,000

  Other Committees: $4,000

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Annual Deferred Stock Unit Awards

  	
   

  	
  Each director receives an annual grant of 1,000
  deferred stock units (“DSUs”). The DSUs are not issued until the director
  ceases to be on the Board, at which time an equivalent number of shares of
  our common stock will be issued to the director, plus all accrued dividends.

  



 










(1) Directors may elect to receive their
compensation in the form of cash, shares of our common stock or additional
DSUs.
11595.

#### SENIOR *v.*THE STATE.

Decided July 28, 1920.

A conviction of having possession of intoxicating liquor was authorized by the evidence.

Indictment for possession of liquor; from Harris superior court — Judge Howard. May 3, 1920.

*Hardy & Peavy,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. F. McLaughlin, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

In no case where the motion for new trial contains the general grounds only, and there is a conflict in the evidence, is this court called upon to say which witness or witnesses spoke the truth. This is a question entirely for the jury, under a proper charge of the court. ■ In such a case all that is necessary for this court to determine is whether or not there is any evidence to support the verdict. In this case there is “some” evidence to support the verdict, for a witness testified: ■ “We found some whisky there about 35 steps from his house, right in the edge of the yard. It was just below his yard, on his premises. There *542was a gallon jug, two quarts, and three or four coca-cola bottles full.” The trial judge was satisfied with the verdict, and we cannot interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1512

In re: RAMESE AUGUSTUS MCKOY , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. (1:15

- cr - 00411

- TDS

- 1; 1:17

- cv - 00514

- TDS

- JLW)

Submitted : August 20, 2019 Decided: September 3, 2019

Before FLOYD, HARRIS, and R USHING , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Ramese Augustus McKoy, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ramese Augustus McKoy petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order f rom this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument bec ause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
NIST Request: Position Papers on Standards and Guidelines to Enhance Software Supply Chain 

Security 

NowSecure Response #5 - “Guidelines for software integrity chains and provenance.” 

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 recognizes the criticality of addressing software integrity chains for securing mobile apps 

and reducing risk for all organizations 

● Specify the use of predefined standardized SBOMs that includes key identifying information 

such as source provider, version, etc. 

● Consider the creation and use of standardized labelling and establish credentialing system to 

identify proper, valid sources of supply chain code with corresponding certifications 

● For consistency and ease of adoption, consider leveraging the application software standards 

to be defined in the project and how to apply those standards and requirements for software 

components themselves in the supply chain. 

Regarding open source provenance, NowSecure recommends DevSecOps environment with shared 

code repositories and automated continuous security testing: 

● Enables the ‘prior tested and repeatedly reviewed’ content for frequent use by the Federal 

community. 

● In order to meet this requirement, organizations will have to implement multiple assessment 

types, and disparate tools become hard to manage.
To: cyberframework 

Subject: Feedback to NIST CSF 2.0 Core - Discussion Draft 

Date: Sunday, May 21, 2023 5:06:45 PM 

Dear NIST CSF team, 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. My feedback for NIST CSF 

2.0 (Discussion Draft, sent in your e-mail May 31, 2023) follows-up on the topic 

mentioned in my e-mail March 3, 2023 (https://www.nist.gov/document/2023-

03-03-individual-rainer508redactpdf :: inclusion of the ‘three-lines-of-defense’ 

model). 

I agree with the current draft that does not explicitly mention the 'three-linesof-defense model' on the level of subcategory GV.RR-02, because this would be 

too specific for the respective abstraction granularity. However, I would 

recommend including the 'three-lines-of-defense-model' for cybersecurity 

functions in the ‘CSF 2.0 Implementation Examples’ column of GV.RR-02. 

To illustrate this input, let me provide a potential formulation: “Example ...: 

Cybersecurity roles and responsibilities are established in the first 

(business/risk management), second (support/risk control), and third 

(internal audit) line of defense” 

In the ‘Informative References’ of GV.RR-02, the respective basic paper of the 

IIA (The Institute of Internal Auditors) could be mentioned: 

https://www.theiia.org/globalassets/documents/resources/the-iias-three-linesmodel-an-update-of-the-three-lines-of-defense-july-2020/three-lines-modelupdated-english.pdf 

Background information: in many jurisdictions and most corporate governance 

sound practices frameworks, the ‘three-lines-of-defense model’ is suggested 

for all risk related functions, including cybersecurity functions (cf., e.g., 

https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2018/volume-4/roles-ofthree-lines-of-defense-for-information-security-and-governance).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

JOHN ELVIN TURNER, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK, 

Respondent. 

No. 67942 

FILED 

JUL 1 2 2016 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

This pro se petition was docketed in this court on January 22, 

2015, without payment of the requisite filing fee. On February 17, 2015, 

petitioner submitted a motion for an order to waive Supreme Court filing 

fee. On February 3, 2016, this court issued an order directing petitioner to 

submit an affidavit in support of his motion within 30 days or the petition 

would be dismissed.' To date, petitioner has not paid the filing fee. 

Accordingly, cause appearing, the motion is denied and this petition is 

dismissed. 

It is so ORDERED. 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

TRACE K. LINDEMAN 

BY: aa 

'The order entered on February 3, 2016, was returned as 

undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

(01-1947 lo-LO3j 
cc: John Elvin Turner 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

( 0)- 1 947 et. 

2