alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
FIRST                                                           EXHIBIT 10(W).
CHICAGO             
NBD
CORPORATION


One First National Plaza
Chicago, Illinois 60670
Telephone: (312) 732-7200
Fax: (312) 732-5309

TIMOTHY P. MOEN
Executive Vice President
Human Resources

                                      December 18, 1995



Richard L. Thomas
Chairman
First Chicago NBD Corporation
One First National Plaza, Suite 0518
Chicago, IL 60670

Dear Dick:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm the recent compensation actions 
approved for you by the Boards of First Chicago and First Chicago NBD 
Corporation.

On November 10, 1995, the First Chicago Corporation Board of Directors 
authorized the following:

 .   Based on anticipated performance levels for 1995, your annual incentive
    award is to be $1,670,000. Your award is scheduled to be paid in late
    January, 1996. The award amount is subject to change based on any 
    significant change in either individual performance and/or the performance
    of the Corporation.

 .   A cash payment for your lifetime of service to First Chicago Corporation
    of $151,000 payable in January, 1996.

 .   Other actions in anticipation of your retirement:
    -  Office space and secretarial support for your lifetime
    -  A car and driver while you serve as a director of the Corporation
    -  Business travel and entertainment expenses up to $50,000 per year while
       you serve as a director of the Corporation
    -  Continuation of the security system installed at your home while you
       serve as director of the Corporation

On December 8, 1995, the First Chicago NBD Corporation Board approved a special
service recognition of $1.0 million to be paid on, or about May 10, 1996. 
     
                                      Yours sincerely,

                                      /s/ Tim

TPM/yt
Virtual Machines in Computer

Forensics Research

John Tebbutt & Doug White
Disclaimer

 Trade names and company products are mentioned in the

text or identified. 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 are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

Statement of Disclosure

 This research was funded by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology Office of Law Enforcement

Standards, the Department of Justice National Institute of

Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the

National Archives and Records Administration.
What is a Virtual Machine?

 VM Application

simulates a physical

computer

 Install operating

system, applications,

etc.

 Behaves exactly as a

separate machine

 A “computer in a

computer”
Advantages of Virtual Machines

 Standard machine state

 Control

− resources, configuration, connectivity, etc.

“Snapshots” capture machine state

− before and after comparisons

 Isolated “lab” environment within the host

computer
NSRL and VMs

 Document cause-effect relationships

 Measure RDS data set coverage

 Provide raw material for data set creation
Cause and effect

 Changes in system characteristics resulting

from specific actions

− Software/malware installation/uninstallation

− Attempts to delete files, etc

 Begin state 㱺 Action 㱺 End state

− Compare Begin and End States

− Record differences

 Addition/deletion/modification of filesystem

and/or Windows® registry entries
Data set coverage

 RDS data set is produced from installation

media

 How does this compare with real systems?

 Begin state 㱺 Action (installation) 㱺 End state

− Record changes

− Compare with RDS

 Measurements of RDS coverage for standard

packages 㱺 75% - 90%
Reference Data Production

 Problem:

− Need very high coverage?

− Cannot access all data on installation media (DRM

or unknown format)?

− Time constraints?
Reference Data Production

 Solution:

− Create VM w/4GB virtual hard drive

− Install software into VM

− Burn VM hard drive image to DVD

− Process DVD in regular fashion

− Archive hard drive image DVD with installation

media
Thank You

John Tebbutt

Computer Scientist

National Software Reference Library

National Institute of Standards and Technology

100 Bureau Drive STOP 8970

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970
Contacts

John Tebbutt

www.nsrl.nist.gov

nsrl@nist.gov

Barbara Guttman

Software Diagnostics & Conformance Testing Division

barbara.guttman@nist.gov

Sue Ballou, Office of Law Enforcement Standards

Rep. For State/Local Law Enforcement

susan.ballou@nist.gov
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CATEGORY 5 MANAGEMENT GROUP, * 

LLC, * 

 * 

 Plaintiff, * 

 * 

vs. * Civil Action: 09-00633-CG-B 

 * 

NATIONAL CASUALTY INSURANCE, * 

COMPANY, 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. Therefore, the Plaintiff=s Motion to Remand (Doc. 43) is DENIED. 

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

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00633-CG-B Document 54 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavo AVILA-RIVAS, also known as Hector Rivas-Trujillo, also known as Hecotor Avila-Rivas, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-1387.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 26, 2001.

Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

*690ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendant pled guilty to one count of unlawful reentry of an alien after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court sentenced him to forty-one months in prison followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Defendant’s counsel filed a timely notice of appeal and has subsequently filed a brief pursuant to Tenth Circuit Rule 46.4(B)(1) and *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), accompanied by a request for leave to withdraw.

*Anders*holds that “if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw.” *Id.*at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396. Counsel must also submit a brief “referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” *Id.*The appellant must be furnished with a copy of counsel’s brief and must be allowed time “to raise any points that he chooses; the court ... then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” *Id.*If the court finds the case frivolous, it may grant counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. *Id.*

The only potentially appealable issue raised in counsel’s *Anders*brief is whether Defendant’s sentence was correctly calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines. We find that issue to be frivolous. Our review of the record and the relevant sentencing guidelines reveals nothing that would indicate a miscalculated sentence in the instant case. Counsel’s brief contains a certificate of service certifying that Defendant was furnished with a copy of the brief by United States mail on December 5, 2000. Aplt.Br., at 12. We have received no indication that Defendant wishes to raise additional issues. We therefore grant counsel leave to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order *691and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.
11519.

#### BUSH *v.*KIMBRELL, sheriff.

Decided July 13, 1920.

No mortgage or reservation of title in the vendor was contained in the purchase-money notes under which the petitioner for a rule against the sheriff in this case sought to have the debt paid from the fund in the sheriff’s hands arising from the sale of the property described therein; and the court did not err in denying the petition.

Money-rule; from Miller superior court — Judge Worrill. April 19, 1920.

*P. D. Rich,*for plaintiff,

cited: Civil Code (1910), § 3257; 117 *Ga.*72.

*W. I. Geer,*for defendant.

Bloodworth, J. W.

J. Bush filed an application for a rule against the sheriff, alleging in part that “your petitioner holds two purchase-money mortgages over certain property, therein described, which said property was in possession of said H. A. Vinson at the time of his death; that said mortgages have never been foreclosed and are past due, and a true copy of both of said mortgages are hereto attached and made a part of this petition as Exhibit CA\” Petitioner further alleged that under certain judicial proceedings said property had been sold by the sheriff, and that, as the proceeds of said sale, the sheriff had in his hands the sum of $300.00, and he praj’ed that the sheriff “show cause . . why said amount should not be paid to petitioner, or a sufficiency thereof to discharge his mortgage liens against the property sold for the purchase-money.” The copies of the ■ notes at*425tached to the petition are as follows: “$225.00. Colquitt, Ga., Jan. 4, 1916. Oct. 1st next after date I promise to pay to the order of W. J. Bush, or bearer, two hundred and twenty-five dollars, for value received. This note given for the purchase-money of two bay mares, one about three years old, named Dola, other about two years old, named Maude, with interest after maturity until paid at eight per cent, per annum; and if I fail to pay this note at maturity, and the same is placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, then I admit that I have damaged the said W. J. Bush ten per cent, on the amount of said debt by forcing him to employ an attorney on account of my default, and said damage is hereby declared for value received to be liquidated and collectible as part of said original debt . . [All homestead rights waived.] Given under the hand and seal of each party. (Signed) H. A. Yinson (Seal).” “$116.00. Colquitt, Ga., Jan. 4, 1918. Oct. 1st next after date I promise to pay to the order of W. J. Bush, or bearer, one hundred and sixteen dollars, for value received. This note given for purchase-money of one bay mare about 12 years old. . . [Bemainder in same language as next above.] (Signed) H. A. Yinson (Seal).” The judge denied the application.

The judge properly denied the application. The notes in this case neither reserved title to the property sold, nor contained a mortgage to secure the purchase-money.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke,*J., *concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the condensed
consolidated financial statements for the nine months ended August 31, 1996 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                          28,052
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,592,396
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    308,660
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      17,975,800
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,721,256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,851,741
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,991
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,497,016
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,851,741
<SALES>                                      8,344,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,344,726
<CGS>                                        6,406,076
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,406,076
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               473,399
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             724,435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (163,126)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (163,126)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (163,126)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10g


Summary of Employment Terms with Donald E. Bogle


The Company and Mr. Bogle have agreed upon certain basic terms of employment
that it is expected will ultimately be incorporated into a written employment
agreement. The basic elements of that agreement are as follows: Mr. Bogle's
compensation as approved by the Compensation Committee includes a base salary of
$250,000 per year plus a bonus ranging from 25% to 50% of base salary if certain
business plan objectives are achieved. Long-term compensation tied to
shareholder value was provided with the granting in 1997 of non-qualified stock
options to purchase 100,000 shares of common stock. Half of the granted shares
vest on January 1, 1999. The remaining 50,000 shares vest on January 1, 2003,
but vesting will be accelerated upon achievement of certain operating
performance goals. Furthermore, if certain operating goals are achieved for 1999
an additional grant of options for 50,000 shares will be made at the then
current common stock market price. In addition, to the above the Company will
reimburse Mr. Bogle for relocation costs, grossed up for taxes and will provide
employee benefits, use of an automobile, and premiums on an executive life
insurance policy. It is contemplated that in the event of termination of
employment in certain circumstances, Mr. Bogle will be entitled to one years
salary plus bonus to the extent earned, continuation of various insurance
benefits, and immediate vesting of granted options to be exercised within one
year.
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 Defense

###### Department of Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Microclimatek, Inc. located at 745 East County Down Drive, Chandler, Arizona 85249, a revocable, nonassignable, partially exclusive license throughout the United States (U.S.) in the fields of Semiconductor Clean Room Industry, Mining Industry, High Temperature Manufacturing Industry, Outdoor Sporting Apparel and Outdoor and Indoor Personal Wear for Body Comfort the Government-Owned inventions described in U.S. Patent Number 7,331,183 issued on February 19, 2008 entitled “Personal Portable Environmental Control System”.

# ADDRESSES:

Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Technology Transfer Office, Attention Michelle Miedzinski, Code 5.0H, 22473 Millstone Road, Building 505, Room 117, Patuxent River, Maryland 20670.

# DATES:

Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, within sixty (60) days of the date of this published notice.

# FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle Miedzinski, 301-342-1133, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, 22473 Millstone Road, Building 505, Room 117, Patuxent River, Maryland 20670

Authority:35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

Dated: December 2, 2014.

N.A. Hagerty-Ford,

Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2014-28950 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 8, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00390

- CV

Juan ROBLES

, Appellant

v.

Maria Milagros ROBLES

, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10

- 2084

- CV Honorable Dwight E. Peschel, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

P h yllis Bush's notification of late reporter's record is hereby NOTED. Time is extended to September 2, 2016.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of August, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Amelia A. Brown *v.*Wm. A. Dye et al.

Dismissal and Non-Suit — Suit on Bond to Perform Judgment.

A suit on a bond to perform a judgment that might be rendered in an action, was properly dismissed, where no judgment appears to have been rendered.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

November 5, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

The appellant sued out an attachment against the property of appellees, which had been removed from a house which belonged to her, and which she claimed to subject to the payment of the rent of the house from which the property was removed, to become due at a future day; the attachment was levied and thereupon appellees executed bond with surety in these words: “We undertake in the sum of three hundred and thirty dollars, that the defendant, W. A. Dye, shall perform the judgment of the court in this action,” etc.

This bond is dated January 15, 1869, and no further step appears to have been taken until the 24th of April, 1869, when appellant filed a notice executed on appellee, and moved in the court below for a judgment against the obligors in said bond. From the bill of exception it appears that the parties on this motion went regularly into the trial of the question of whether appellee, Dye, was indebted to appellant for the rent claimed; and! after all the evidence was heard, the law and facts having been submitted to the judge, he adjudged that appellant’s petition should be dismissed with costs; and from that judgment she prosecuted this appeal.

*282
      *W. B. Riley, for appellant.*

*Clentmms, Willis, for appellees.*

By the execution of the bond, the original attachment was discharged and the action then stood for trial on the merits, the responsibility of the obligors in the bond depending upon the result of the trial of the action. If appellant succeeded in recovering judgment, and the same was not satisfied, she had her remedy on the bond, the stipulation of which was “to perform the judgment of the court in the action;” and until judgment was rendered in her favor in the original action, she could not succeed on the bond, and no such judgment appears to have been rendered. The judgment, which is in effect a dismissal of the motion, was proper and must be affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01
                                                                   -------------

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                         ------------------------------


Nashua Corporation, or one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, owns beneficially,
directly or indirectly, all of the capital stock in the following subsidiaries:

                                                                 Jurisdiction of
Domestic                                                          Incorporation
--------                                                         ---------------

Cerion Holdings Inc. (1)(5)                                      Delaware
Nashua Belmont Limited (2)                                       Delaware
Nashua International, Inc. (1)                                   Delaware
Nashua Commercial Products Corporation (1)                       Delaware
Nashua Photo European Investments, Inc.(2)                       Delaware
Nashua Photo Inc.(1)                                             Delaware
Nashua Photo International Investments, Inc.(2)                  Delaware
Nashua Photo Licensing Inc.(2)                                   Delaware
Nashua P.R. Inc. (1)                                             Delaware
Nippon Nashua Incorporated (1)                                   Delaware
Promolink Corporation(1)                                         Delaware

                                                                 Jurisdiction of
Foreign                                                           Incorporation
-------                                                          ---------------

Nashua Europe B.V. (1)                                           Netherlands
Nashua FSC Limited (1)                                           Jamaica
Nashua Photo B.V. (2)                                            Netherlands
Nashua Photo Limited (2)                                         Canada
Nashua Photo Limited (2)                                         England
Nashua Photo S.N.C.(3)                                           France
Postal Film Services (Country-Wide) Limited (4)                  England

---------------
All of the above listed subsidiaries are included in Nashua's consolidated
financial statements.

(1)  Stock held by Nashua Corporation
(2)  Stock held by Nashua Photo Inc.
(3)  Stock held 50% by Nashua Photo European Investments, Inc. and 50% by Nashua
     Photo International Investments, Inc.
(4)  Stock held by Nashua Photo Limited (England)
(5)  Cerion Holdings Inc. owns 37% of Cerion Technologies Inc., a Delaware
     Corporation.






                                      -44-
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Frederick W. Jacobs, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer andChief Accounting Officer, certify that:   1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of AphtonCorporation;   2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; and   3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report.     Date: February 25, 2004             Signature: /s/ Frederick W. Jacobs