alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
National Software Reference Library (NSRL) 

(http://www.nsrl.nist.gov) 

Gary Fisher (nsrl@nist.gov) 

Overview: The National Software Reference 

Library (NSRL) provides a repository of known 

software, file profiles, and file signatures for use by 

law enforcement organizations in computer 

forensics investigations. 

Industry Need Addressed: Investigation of computer files required a tremendous effort 

in reviewing individual files. A typical desktop computer contains between 5,000 and 

20,000 files, each of which must be reviewed for probative content. To eliminate as many 

known files as possible from having to be reviewed, an automated filter program will 

screen these files for specific profiles and signatures. If a specific file’s profile and 

signature match the database of known files, then the file can be eliminated from review 

as a known file. Those files that do not match would be subject to further investigation. 

There are four objections from law enforcement about computer forensics tools that are 

available in the marketplace. Specifically, there are no unbiased organizations involved in 

the implementation of investigative tools. Second, law enforcement has no control over 

the quality of data provided by the available tools since they come from independent 

market-driven sources. Third, there are no repositories of original software available from 

which data can be reproduced. Fourth, each tool provides only a limited set of capabilities 

with respect to the information that can be obtained from file systems under investigation.

NIST/ITL Approach: A prototype manual system has been developed as a measuring 

tool for checking the output of a tool being developed and modified by a contractor. The 

prototype provides file profiles and computed signatures of known files contained within 

the NSRL. The product will be tested against the prototype system and put into 

production to produce an initial database of known file profiles and signatures for 

distribution. The production system will be tested for reproducible results and production 

of a master database of file profiles and signatures. An extract of this database will be 

made available through distribution channels. Individual manufacturers of software are 

being asked to donate software, particularly older versions, to the repository. This 

software includes virtually any type available, such as operating systems, database 

management systems, utilities, graphics images, component libraries, etc. in all their 

different versions. 

Impact: The NSRL is designed to meet all four criteria voiced by law enforcement: 

NIST is a neutral organization chosen for its international reputation in providing clean, 

unbiased, and objective reference data; NIST provides an open rigorous process for 

assuring the quality of the data; the NSRL will become an international resource software 

repository for the constituent file information included in the data; and the reference data 

will include full information on each file including cross-reference of data for use by 

other tools.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         176,525
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,005
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 785,635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   785,635
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,981
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   97,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,964
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (94,033)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (94,033)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.50)
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

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

## FILED December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51054 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ABEL GARCIA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-663-1

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Abel Garcia-Perez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Wilkerson *v.*Fudge.

Opinion delivered January 23, 1928.

Appeal and error — failure to abstract testimony. — Under Supreme ■Court rule 9, where ’ appellant in his abstract and brief merely stated what he conceived the facts were, and did not set out the substance of each witness' testimony, nor abstract the judgment, the motion for new trial and the order overruling it, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed on motion.

Appeal from Independence Circuit Court; *H. L. Ponder,*Special Judge;

affirmed.

*J. Paul Ward,*for appellant.

*S. M. Casey,*for appellee.

McHaney, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment against appellant, holding him jointly liable with S. S. Wilkerson and Robert Wilkerson on a promissory note for $411 in favor of ¡appellees. Counsel for appellees have filed a motion to affirm the case for failure to comply with Rule 9 of this court, in that' appellant failed to abstract the pleadings, the evidence, the instructions, the judgment of the court, the motion for a new trial, if one was filed, and the order overruling-it, if one was made. The abstract and brief as originally filed on behalf of appellant failed to comply with said rule in the above particulars, and, after counsel for appellees had filed his brief urging an affirmance on this account, appellant applied to and obtained leave of this court to comply with said rule. He thereafter filed an amended abstract, setting out the instructions of the court., and interlined in his statement of facts page references to the transcript.

*12Ten witnesses testified in the case, but this evidence is not abstracted. Appellant contents, himself by a statement of what he conceives the facts to be, but does not set out the substance of each witness’ testimony. He does not abstract the judgment of the court, nor the motion for a new trial, if one, and the order overruling it, if one, and we cannot tell, without an examination of the record, whether there was a motion for a new trial, and, if so, whether the errors complained of were assigned in the motion for a new trial.

Under this state of facts we feel that we will have to sustain the motion to affirm for the noncompliance with this rule. The judgment is therefore affirmed.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 D0 13 8 . J USTI N SCOTT LASTER v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 1 4

, J u s t i n Sco t t Las t er p l ed g u i l t y t o ch i ld m o les t at io n an d en ti ci n g a ch i ld

fo r i n d ecen t p u rp o s es

. In M ay 2 0 1 7

, L as t er fi l ed a “ M o t i o n t o Co rrect Vo i d

Sen ten ce/ W i t h d rawal o f Gu i l t y Pl ea.” Th e t ri al co urt g ran t ed Las t er’ s m o t i o n to

co rrect h i s sen t en ce an d am en d ed t h e s en ten ce, b u t d en i ed h i s m o t io n t o wi t h d raw h i s

g u i l t y p l ea. Las t er s eek s d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew o f th e den i al o f h i s m ot i o n t o wi t h d raw

h i s g u i l t y p l ea.

An o rd er d en y i n g a m o t i on t o wi t h d raw a g u i l t y pl ea m ay be ap p eal ed d i rect l y

.

See S mi t h v. S ta te

, 2 8 3 Ga. 3 76 (6 5 9 SE2 d 3 8 0 ) (2 00 8 ). W e wi ll g ran t a t i m el y fi l ed

ap p li cat io n fo r d i scret i o n ary ap p eal i f th e l o we r c o u r t ’ s o rd er i s s u b ject t o d i rect

ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). Acco rd in g l y

, th i s ap p li cat i o n i s h ereb y GRANTED,

an d Las t er s h al l h av e t en day s fro m t h e d at e o f t h i s o rd er t o fi l e a n o ti ce o f ap p eal in

t h e t ri al co u rt

. If he h as al read y fi l ed a t i m el y n o t i ce o f ap p eal i n t h e tri al co u rt

, h e

n eed n o t fi l e a s eco n d n o ti ce. 1 Th e cl erk of t h e t ri al co u rt i s DIRECTED t o i n cl u d e

1 Las t er has i n cl u d ed wi t h h i s ap p li cat i o n m at eri al s a co p y of a no t i ce o f ap p eal

, b u t th e n o t i ce do es n o t b ear a fi l e-s t am p

. Th u s

, i t i s n o t c l e ar wh et h er o r wh en t h e

n o t i ce was fi l ed

. October 26, 2017a co p y

o f t h i s o rd er i n t h e reco rd t ran s m i t t ed t o t h e Co urt o f Ap p eal s

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/26/2017
Opinion issued November 19, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00540-CV

———————————

CLIFTON JERRY FRANCIS, JR., Appellant

V.

ADRIAN GARCIA, SHERIFF, HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 

AND HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2014-25685

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Clifton Jerry Francis, Jr., has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of 

appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to 
2

dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) 

(allowing involuntary dismissal of case).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a 

brief. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Huddle, and Lloyd.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

BRIAN METROCAVAGE and SHARY ) METROCAVAGE, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3388 ) THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON ) f/k/a THE BANK OF NEW YORK as ) trustee for the certificate holders of ) CWABS 2004-2005; NATIONSTAR ) MORTGAGE, LLC f/k/a CENTEX ) HOME EQUITY CO., LLC; BANK OF ) AMERICA, N.A. f/k/a BAC HOME ) LOAN SERVICING, L.P.; FIELD ) ASSET SERVICES, INC., ) ) Appellees. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed December 5, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Lon Arend, Judge. Brian Metrocavage and Shary Metrocavage, pro se. Nancy M. Wallace of Akerman, LLP, Tallahassee; William P. Heller of Akerman, LLP, Fort Lauderdale; and Eric M. Levine of Akerman, LLP, West Palm Beach, for Appellee Bank of America. No appearance for remaining Appellees.- 2 -

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4525 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4525

 To require the Secretary of the Treasury to redesign the half dollar 
   coin to commemorate Ronald Wilson Reagan, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 2004

Mr. Miller of Florida (for himself, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Bradley of 
 New Hampshire, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Foley, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Pence, Mr. 
 Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Souder, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Feeney, Mr. 
  Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Jones of North 
  Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of the Treasury to redesign the half dollar 
   coin to commemorate Ronald Wilson Reagan, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGN OF HALF DOLLAR COIN TO COMMEMORATE RONALD WILSON 
              REAGAN.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Ronald Wilson 
Reagan Half Dollar Act''.
    (b) Redesign of Half Dollar Coin.--Section 5112(d) of title 31, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
    ``(3) The obverse side of the half dollar shall have the likeness 
of Ronald Wilson Reagan.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information  extracted from the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2000 and the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter and six months ended July 31, 2000 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                       1,000

<S>                                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                 FEB-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                   JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                                            6,031
<SECURITIES>                                                     19,417
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     8,032
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 28,613
<PP&E>                                                            1,026
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     (879)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   36,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            (6,183)
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                            (16)
<OTHER-SE>                                                      (80,490)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    (36,791)
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    875
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  6,597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  (6,946)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              (6,946)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     (6,946)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (0.43)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               7
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        161
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                             11
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         136
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       176
<SALES>                                             15
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    15
<CGS>                                               12
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       12
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (2)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      4
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  3
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 8966]

                    The Government of the Republic of Nicaragua has informed the Government of the United States of America of its interest in an extension of the                     *Agreement Between the Government of United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Nicaragua Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Pre-Hispanic Cultures of the Republic of Nicaragua*                     (“Agreement”).                

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to the requirement under 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), an extension of this Agreement is hereby proposed.

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(2), the views and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding this proposal will be requested.

                    A copy of the Agreement, the Designated List of restricted categories of material, and related information can be found at the following Web site:                     *http://culturalheritage.state.gov*.                

Dated: November 25, 2014.

Evan Ryan,

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2014-29213 Filed 12-11-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
11443.

#### LAING *v.*BODIFORD.

Decided July 14, 1920.

The verdict being authorized by evidence and approved by the trial judge, this court can not disturb it.

A party will not be heard to complain of instructions given to the jury at his request.

Complaint; from city court of Cairo — Judge Eigsby. February 23, 1920.

*E. D. Rivers, Titus & Dekle,*for plaintiff in error.

*Ira Carlisle,*contra.

*461Luke, J.

This case arose by reason of a suit on an open account and a general denial by the defendant of the indebtedness alleged. There was sharp conflict in the testimony of the parties. The jury heard the evidence and believed the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses, and found the verdict in favor of him. There being evidence to authorize this verdict, and the verdict having the approval of the trial judge, this court could not set aside the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

In the approval of the amended motion for a new trial the judge certified that the part of his charge upon which error was assigned in one of the grounds of the motion “was given in response to request of the defendant.” The defendant will not be heard to complain of a charge which he requests. When the charge of the court is read in its entirety, and in view of the request to charge, the other excerpt complained of is not error. For no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*cJudgment affirmed.*

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