alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>              <C>              <C>        
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS            6-MOS            9-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998      DEC-31-1998      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998      JAN-01-1998      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998      JUN-30-1998      SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                   76               17               29
<SECURITIES>                              0                0                0
<RECEIVABLES>                           278              283              299
<ALLOWANCES>                              6                7                8
<INVENTORY>                             236              261              252
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1359             1334             1356
<PP&E>                                  952             1037             1089
<DEPRECIATION>                          393              400              433
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         2553             2778             2812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  1107             1175             1212
<BONDS>                                 366              463              415
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    41               41               41
<PREFERRED>                               0                0                0
<COMMON>                                  0                0                0
<OTHER-SE>                              531              569              605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           2553             2778             2812
<SALES>                                 563             1191             1786
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        566             1198             1798
<CGS>                                   437              928             1391
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           491             1038             1542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          1                2                3
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                0                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0               13               21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          68              146              231
<INCOME-TAX>                             42               53               86
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      33               74              112
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                0                0
<CHANGES>                                 0                0                0
<NET-INCOME>                             33               74              112
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .90             2.03             3.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .87             1.96             2.99 
        

</TABLE>
#### Alexander Hunter *v.*Ann C. Hunter et al.

Principal and Surety — Injunction Bond — Release of Sureties.

An attempt to do that which is beneficial to sureties on an injunction bond will not have the effect of releasing them from liability or delay plaintiff in his remedy against them.

Executors and Administrators — Liability for Taxes.

An administrator is not liable for taxes on real estate of deceased.

Pleading — Reply—Matter Litigated.

Where matter set up in the answer has been previously litigated, it must be reached by reply, where it does, not appear from the record.

APPEAL PROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 23, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

When the injunction was dissolved the appellant had the right to his execution on the original judgment, and when *236levied or placed in the hands of the sheriff, it was in aid of the responsibility of the sureties and calculated to relieve them from the payment of the judgment. The attempt to do- that which was beneficial to the sureties certainly ought not to have the effect to release them from liability, or even delay the appellant in his remedy against them. They undertake tO' pay the judgment and the appellant can proceed against them at once to make it. If the judgment is satisfied by the original debtor, it bars the action; and any payment made by the debtor can be relied on as a discharge to that claim. The demurrer should have been sustained to the second paragraph of the answer'. This' defense should show a state of fact making the administrator liable for the taxes. If on real estate the taxes are claimed, the representative can not be made to pay. Whether the matters in the answer have been previously litigated between the parties, does not appear from; this record. This being the case the only mode of reaching it is by reply. The demurrer should have been sustained to the first and second paragraphs of the answer. The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer with leave to amend, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*Johnson, for appellant.*

*Muir & Wickliife, for appellees.*

Judge Hardin not sitting.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0705-CG-M

 :

HARVEY KNIGHT, :

 :

Defendant. :

JUDGMENT

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

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of March, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00705-CG-M Document 14 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 1
### NOTE: wait P oint is not part of filename as it is not listed as variable to add to filename 

### Trajectory Comments

Single quotes are text input

Produces 4 file s : polarization_UPUP polarization_UPDOWN polarization_DOWNUP polarization_DOWNDOWN

s paces produce underscores ‘_’

Produces 2 points from 1 to 2 . At each step, this sets waitPoint to 0
and goes to subloop.

Subloop set s permutation of front pol and back pol

. Each permutation counts respective
time with no time delay as
waitPoint is 0. After 4 perms, waits 10s and goes back to main loop

. Each data point will have all 4 permu tations.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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


In connection with the Annual Report of The InterGroup Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John V. Winfield, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
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.


Date: October 17, 2005                          /s/ John V. Winfield
                                                ----------------------------
                                                John V. Winfield, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The InterGroup Corporation, Inc. and will be retained by The
InterGroup Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 4.06



                       AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT

This amendment, dated as of June 24, 1998, amends the Rights Agreement (the
"Rights Agreement"), dated as of July 19, 1996, between Nashua Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and The First National Bank of Boston, a
national banking association (the "Rights Agent"). Terms defined in the Rights
Agreement and not otherwise defined herein are used herein as so defined.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, on July 19, 1996, the Board of Directors of the Company authorized the
issuance of Rights to purchase, on the terms and subject to the provisions of
the Rights Agreement, one one-hundredth of a share of the Company's Series B
Participating Preferred Stock;

WHEREAS, on July 19, 1996, the Board of Directors of the Company authorized and
declared a dividend distribution of one Right for every share of Common Stock of
the Company outstanding on the Record Date and authorized the issuance of one
Right (subject to certain adjustments) for each share of Common Stock of the
Company issued between the Record Date and the Distribution Date;

WHEREAS, on July 19, 1996, the Company and the Rights Agent entered into the
Rights Agreement to set forth the description and terms of the Rights; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 27 of the Rights Agreement, the Continuing
Directors now desire to amend certain provisions of the Rights Agreement in
order to modify certain provisions contained therein;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Rights Agreement is hereby amended by deleting "10%" in all
places where such term is used and substituting therefor "20%".

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to the
Rights Agreement to be duly executed and their respective corporate seals to be
hereunto affixed and attested, all as of the day and year first above written.



Attest:                                   NASHUA CORPORATION



By /s/ Peter C. Anastos                   By /s/ Gerald G. Garbacz
   ------------------------------            ------------------------------
   Secretary                                 Gerald G. Garbacz
                                             Chairman, President and
                                             Chief Executive Officer




Attest:                                   THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON



By /s/ James P. Mitchell                  By /s/ Carol A. Mulvey-Eori
   ------------------------------            ------------------------------
                                             Carol A. Mulvey-Eori
                                             Administration Manager
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund V, Ltd. at June 30, 1999,  and its  statement of income
for the six months then ended and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10-Q of CNL Income Fund V, Ltd. for the six months ended June 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         2,393,763
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  177,341
<ALLOWANCES>                                   140,973
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         11,514,999
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,879,306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 17,352,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,302,378
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,352,451
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               769,259
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  327,842
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,075,276
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,075,276
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,076,276
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Due  to the  nature  of  its  industry,  CNL  Income  Fund  V,  Ltd.  has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### STATE v. HARRIS

No. 30P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 212

Petition by defendant (Tommy Lee Martin) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1997.
General Information

1. Are you involved in cybersecurity workforce education or training (e.g.,curriculum-based programs)? 

If so, in what capacity?

The Security Injections@Towson (www.towson.edu/securityinjections) project is recognized as a model for 

integrating security across the curriculum with a focus on introducing secure coding in lower-level programming 

classes. This project has led to the design, assessment, and dissemination of over 50 learning modules (called 

‘security injections’). These are self-contained, lab-based modules, targeting specific security issues (including input 

validation, integer error and buffer overflow), and designed to be injected into courses with minimal impact on the 

curriculum. Assessment results from over 1,600 students from diverse institutions show that security injections help 

students retain, comprehend, and apply secure coding concepts in the introductory programming courses. In 

addition, the modules help increase students’ security awareness in all computing courses.

The Security Injections@ Towson project has been collaborative since the start, including faculty from community 

colleges and an HBCU to design, pilot, develop, and assess the modules. Additionally, dissemination has included 

over 50 workshops, panels and birds-of-a-feather groups, a ‘Build-A-Lab’ program, and a ‘Security Ambassador’ 

program reaching over 400 faculty.

The Security Injections@Towson e-learning ecosystem includes over 50 cybersecurity teaching modules that 

introduce cybersecurity in computing classes and also provides support materials and resources for faculty (e.g., 

course mappings, sample syllabi, etc.). To date, over 360 faculty, across 221 institutions, including 91+ community 

colleges and several high schools, have completed more than 3,100 cybersecurity modules.

The Security Injections@Towson, SPLASH@Towson, and Cyber4All projects are supported by the National 

Science Foundation under grants NSF DUE-1241738, NSF DUE -0817267, NSF DGE-1516113, NSF DGE1516113, NSF DGE-1241649, the GenCyber program, and the Intel Corporation.

Sidd Kaza, Towson University

Elizabeth Hawthorne, Union County College

Cara Tang, Portland Community College

Blair Taylor, Towson University

Cindy Tucker, Bluegrass Community and Technical College 

Claude Turner, Norfolk State University
**Exhibit 24.1****POWER OF ATTORNEY**     The undersigned, a director of Nash-Finch Company (the “Company”), a Delaware corporation,does hereby constitute and appoint Robert B. Dimond and Kathleen M. Mahoney, and each of them, asthe undersigned’s true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power to each of them to act withoutthe other, for and in the name of the undersigned to sign the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the 52 weeks ended December 29, 2007 (“Annual Report”), and to file said Annual Report sosigned with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., under the provisions of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and hereby grants to the attorneys-in-fact, and eachof them, full power and authority to do and perform any and all acts and things necessary to bedone in the exercise of the rights and powers granted herein as fully and to all intents andpurposes as the undersigned might or could do in person; and hereby ratifies and confirms all thatsuch attorneys-in-fact, or any of them, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.     In Witness Whereof,I have signed this Power of Attorney as of February 26, 2008.   /s/ William R. Voss /s/ Mickey P. Foret   William R. Voss Mickey P. Foret   /s/ Robert L. Bagby /s/ John H. Grunewald   Robert L. Bagby John H. Grunewald   /s/ Carole F. Bitter /s/ Douglas A. Hacker   Carole F. Bitter Douglas A. Hacker   /s/ Sam K. Duncan /s/ Hawthorne L. Proctor   Sam K. Duncan Hawthorne L. Proctor   /s/ Jerry L. Ford /s/ William H. Weintraub   Jerry L. Ford William H. Weintraub
NIGOS License: 

This software was developed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by 

employees of the Federal Government in the course of their official duties. Pursuant to title 17 

Section 105 of the United States Code. This software is not subject to copyright protection and 

is in the public domain. NIST assumes no responsibility whatsoever for use by other parties of 

its source code or open source server, and makes no guarantees, expressed or implied, about its 

quality, reliability, or any other characteristic. 

NIGOS Disclaimer: 

Specific hardware and software products identified in this open source project were used in order 

to perform technology transfer and collaboration. In no case does such identification imply 

recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor 

does it imply that the products and equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the 

purpose. 

1
Department of Energy (DOE) Fiscal Year 2020 Agency Report

1. Please provide a summary of your agency’s activities undertaken to carry out the provisions of 

OMB Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus 

Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities” and the National Technology Transfer and 

Advance Act (NTTAA). The summary should contain a link to the agency’s standards-specific 

website(s) where information about your agency’s standards and conformity assessment related 

activities are available.

In 2020, as in previous reporting years, the Department of Energy (DOE) relied heavily on voluntary 

consensus standards (VCSs) to fulfill its mission and has a long history of working with the VCS 

community to develop standards that help DOE achieve its missions. DOE supports federal and 

contractor participation on appropriate VCS committees and writing bodies and tracks participation. 

Appropriate VCSs are referenced or invoked in our directives or contracts to meet our specific 

requirements.

The DOE Technical Standards Program has a detailed set of procedures which include the requirement 

to perform a mandatory search for existing VCSs prior to initiating a DOE Standard development or 

revision project. The Department has a robust project justification process which demands that a 

potential DOE Standard developer perform searches for existing VCSs and document not only the results 

of those searches, but also the methods used to perform the searches.

DOE does not have a conformity assessment program, and therefore does not track conformity 

assessment activities regarding VCSs.

DOE Technical Standards Program Internet Link

https://www.standards.doe.gov/

2. Please list the government-unique standards (GUS) your agency began using in lieu of voluntary 

consensus standards during FY 2020. Please note that GUS which are still in effect from previous years 

should continue to be listed, thus the total number in your agency's report will include all GUS 

currently in use (previous years and new as of this FY): 0
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen E. BISHOP, f/d/b/a Ray’s Leisure Time Shop, Defendant-Appellant, and Mary Ann Bishop; West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs; West Virginia Department of Tax and Revenue, Defendants.

No. 00-1575.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 2001.

Decided: May 21, 2001.

James R. Sheatsley, Gorman, Sheatsley & Company, L.C., Beckley, WV, for appellant. Paula M. Junghans, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Rebecca Aline Betts, United States Attorney, Gilbert S. Rothenberg, John A. Nolet, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Stephen E. Bishop appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion for a hearing and granting the government’s motion to set aside a satisfaction of judgment that was allegedly entered by mistake. Bishop contends that the district court should have held a hearing and allowed him to present evidence as to the scope of the agreement. He also contends that the court erred in determining that the agreement settled some, rather than all, of the government’s claims against him. Having previously granted Bishop’s uncontested motion to submit on briefs, we have reviewed the briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinions and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Bishop,*No. CA-96-2057-5 (S.D.W.Va. July 9,1999 & Mar. 3, 2000).

*AFFIRMED.*
#### In re Phillip A. BROOKOVER; Vickie Brookover, Debtors. Phillip A. Brookover; Vickie Brookover, Appellants-Appellants, v. Richard T. Vanderheiden, Appellee-Appellee.

No. 00-15881.

D.C. No. CV-99-00491-ROS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2001.1.

Decided March 26, 2001.

*473Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Phillip and Vickie Brookover appeal pro se the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision to reopen the Brookovers’ bankruptcy proceedings and except from discharge a superior court judgment against the Brookovers. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand.

We review the timeliness of a notice of appeal de novo. *Delaney v. Alexander (In re Delaney),*29 F.3d 516, 517 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). The court of appeals must consider the jurisdictional issue sua sponte and regardless of whether it was raised below. *Greene v. United States (In re Souza),*795 F.2d 855, 857 n. 1 (9th Cir.1986).

A notice of appeal must be filed with the district court within 10 days of the bankruptcy court’s entry of judgment. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002(a). The provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional and are strictly construed. *See Greene,*795 F.2d at 857. The untimely notice of appeal was not called to the attention of the district judge, nor was it cited to us. However, because the Brookovers filed their notice of appeal to the district court more than 10 days after the bankruptcy court entered judgment, the district court lacked jurisdiction over their untimely appeal. *See id.*at 857-58. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for dismissal.

We deny appellee’s request for attorneys fees and costs. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.