alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.4

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Regina O. Sommer, certify that

         1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
                  Netegrity, Inc.;

         2.       Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
                  statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
                  necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
                  circumstances under which such statements were made, not
                  misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
                  and

         3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
                  financial information included in this report, fairly present
                  in all material respects the financial condition, results of
                  operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
                  the periods presented in this report.

Date: January 29, 2004                 /s/ Regina O. Sommer
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       Regina O. Sommer
                                       Chief Financial Officer and
                                       Treasurer (Principal Financial
                                       Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 40719 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus

Ramon Franco

- Hernandez,
Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:19

- CR

- 2074

- 1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramon Franco

Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Franco

- Hernandez has not filed a

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 16, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-40719 Document: 00515980058 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2021No. 20

- 40719

2 response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue f or appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2

. Case: 20-40719 Document: 00515980058 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2021
### The Honorab le Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge 1 

### for the Western District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-3622

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * Gary A. Lopes, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 16, 1996 Filed: April 22, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gary Lopes pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribut e meth amphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. A t sentencing he challenged the assessment of a seventh criminal history poin t for a 1985 "No Driver's License" municipal conviction, which resulted in
a fine and one year probation. The district court nonetheless assigne d 1 Lopes a Category IV criminal history based on seven points, rather tha n Category III based on six points. See U.S.S.G. § 5A. The court determine d a Guidelines sentencing range of 210 to 262 mont hs, and sentenced Lopes to 210 months imprisonment and five years supervise d release. Lopes appeals, and we affirm.

### -2- Alt hough Lopes's sentence falls within the 188-to-235-month rang e that would have appli ed if he had had a Category III criminal history, we conclud e the sentence is reviewable because there is no certainty th e district court would have imposed the same sente nce under the lower range, particularlybecause the government was required to recommend sentencing at the lo w end of the Guidelines range pursuant to the written ple a agreement. See United States v. Kloor , 961 F.2d 1393, 1394 (8th Cir. 1992 ) (per curiam).

We review de novo the application of the Sentencing Guidelines
. Uni ted States v. Casares-Cardenas , 14 F.3d 1283, 1288 (8th Cir.), cert . denied , 115 S. Ct. 147 (1994). A defendant earns three points for a priso n sentence exceeding th irteen months, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(a), two points for a prison sentence of at least sixty days, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(b), and one point for a "prior sentence" not counted in (a) or (b), U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c)
. Prior sentences for m isdemeanor offenses are counted, except that certain "prior offenses and offenses similar to them, by whatever name they ar e known, are counted only if . . . the sentence was a term of probation of at least one year"; t hose offenses include "[d]riving without a license." U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). Because Lopes failed to produce any evidence to show that his "No Driver's License" offense was not similar to "drivin g without a license," we conclude the district court properly assessed the criminal history point. See United States v. Ma son , 74 F.3d 890, 891 (8th Cir
. 1996) (per curiam) (in § 4A1.2(c)(1) context, "violations of loca l ordinances . . . do count for sentencing purposes so long as a probation term of at least one year was imposed").
The judgment is affirmed.

### -3- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT WAYNE EUGENE ALEXANDER, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA JUSTICE No. 97-7407 COMMITTEE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-96-3378-3-22-BC) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1999 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Wayne Eugene Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Wayne Eugene Alexander appeals the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). In a separate order, the court also granted a certificate of probable cause to appeal as to one issue--claim (2) below--and denied it as to all other issues. We construe this order as a grant of a certificate of appealability and affirm as to the certified issue. As tothe remaining issues, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss. Alexander's petition alleges that his attorney was constitutionally deficient in three respects: (1) he failed to object to the trial court's instruction on malice; (2) he failed to object to the trial court's Allen * charge; and (3) he failed to object to errors committed by the trial judge, thereby waiving appellate review. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the court's order denying § 2254 relief on claim (2), and deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss as to claims (1) and (3) on the reasoning of the district court. Alexander v. South Carolina Justice Committee , No. CA-96-3378-3-22-BC (D.S.C. Aug. 29, 1997). We dispense with oral argument b ecause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART

_________________________________________________________________ *Allen v. United States , 164 U.S. 492 (1896).
2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.01

                          COMMISSION FILE NO. 1-5492-1



                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


Know All Men By These Presents, that each person whose signature appears below
constitutes and appoints John L. Patenaude and Robert S. Amrein and each of
them, as true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign Nashua Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K,
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto
said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them, or their or his
substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SIGNATURE                                             TITLE                       DATE
---------                                             -----                       ----
<S>                                                   <C>                         <C>
/s/Sheldon A. Buckler                                 Director                    March 28, 2001
-----------------------------
Sheldon A. Buckler


/s/Avrum Gray                                         Director                    March 27, 2001
-----------------------------
Avrum Gray


/s/Charles S. Hoppin                                  Director                    March 27, 2001
------------------------------
Charles S. Hoppin


/s/John M. Kucharski                                  Director                    March 23, 2001
------------------------------
John M. Kucharski


/s/David C. Miller, Jr.                               Director                    March 23, 2001
------------------------------
David C. Miller, Jr.


/s/George R. Mrkonic, Jr.                             Director                    March 26, 2001
------------------------------
George R. Mrkonic, Jr.


/s/Peter J. Murphy                                    Director                    March 27, 2001
------------------------------
Peter J. Murphy


/s/James F. Orr III                                   Director                    March 28, 2001
-------------------------------
James F. Orr III
</TABLE>
Quality •ANSI/ASB STD 017: 

Standard Practices for 

Measurement Traceability 

in Forensic Toxicology 

(Published 2018)

•ANSI/ASB STD 036: 

Standard Practices for 

Method Validation in 

Forensic Toxicology 

(Published 2019)

•ANSI/ASB STD 054: 

Standard for a Quality 

Control Program in Forensic 

Toxicology Laboratories

•ANSI/ASB STD 055: 

Standard for Breath Alcohol 

Measuring Instrument 

Calibration

•ANSI/ASB STD 056: 

Standard Practices for 

Evaluating Measurement 

Uncertainty of Quantitative 

Measurements in Forensic 

Toxicology

•ANSI/ASB 153: Standard 

Practices for Proficiency 

Testing for Forensic 

Toxicology Laboratories

•ANSI/ASB STD XXX: Quality 

Assurance Management 

Systems in Forensic 

Toxicology Laboratories

Personnel •ANSI/ASB XXX: Standard 

for Education and Training 

of Forensic Toxicology 

Personnel

Stakeholders •ANSI/ASB 118: Standard 

for Breath Alcohol 

Instrumentation 

Specifications

•ANSI/ASB 156: Guidelines 

for Specimen Collection 

and Preservation in 

Forensic Toxicology

Applications •ANSI/ASB STD 058: Standard 

Method for Blood Ethanol 

Identifications and 

Quantitations

• ANSI/ASB STD 098: Standard 

for Mass Spectral Data 

Acceptance in Forensic 

Toxicology

•ANSI/ASB STD 113: Standard 

for Identification Criteria in 

Forensic Toxicology

• ANSI/ASB STD 119: Standard 

for the Analytical Scope and 

Sensitivity of Forensic 

Toxicological Testing of Blood 

in Medicolegal Death 

Investigations

• ANSI/ASB STD 120: Standard 

for the Analytical Scope and 

Sensitivity of Forensic 

Toxicological Testing of Blood 

in Impaired Driving 

Investigations

• ANSI/ASB STD 121: Standard 

for the Analytical Scope and 

Sensitivity of Forensic 

Toxicological Testing of Urine 

in Drug-Facilitated Crime 

Investigations

•ANSI/ASB 152: Standard for 

the Minimum Content 

Requirements of Forensic 

Toxicology Procedures

•ANSI/ASB XXX: Standard 

Method for Breath Alcohol 

Subject Testing

Report and Testimony •ANSI/ASB BPR 037: 

Guidelines for Opinions 

and Testimony in Forensic 

Toxicology (Published 

2019)

•ANSI/ASB STD 053: 

Standard for Report 

Content in Forensic 

Toxicology (Published 

2020)

•ANSI/ASB BPR 122: 

Guidelines for Performing 

Alcohol Calculations in 

Forensic Toxicology

Approved for OSAC Registry

Being considered for OSAC Registry

With ASB for Circulation to Public

Awaiting OSAC STRP Process

Under draft by OSAC Toxicology Subcommittee

Not started
Mission

TPO serves our NIST customers by

leading technology transfer processes

that NIST researchers use to develop

innovations from concept to practical

application.

Vision

TPO facilitates the best possible

outcome for each NIST research

innovation and provides dynamic

interagency leadership for technology

transfer policy and analysis.


But if you zoom in things look a lot different

How we think of Radiation beams
Focused x-ray

beam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_flash_drive#/media/File:USB_3.0_Flash_Drive_PCB.jpg

Image quality and magnification

Increased risk of radiation damage

Ionization chamber

Alanine-EPR dosimeters
Monte Carlo simulations of

electron beams on 2 mm graphite

wafer, NIST internal, Fred

Bateman

Dose = Energy absorbed per unit mass

Ionizing radiation consists of highly energetic

photons, electrons or heavier particles f rom a radioactive

source or produced by an accelerator
No systematic impact of radiation (up to 1 MGy dose)

were found on passivated silicon chip devices, indicating

the extreme durability under harsh conditions



Thermal Power Meter

Semiconductor

(Photodiode)

Radiation Pressure

Power Meter

Temperature

Current /

voltage

Force

Technique Sensor Quantity

Absorber

Laser

Laser

Photodiode

Mirror

Laser


Mechanisms:

Si-wafer mirror / spring suspension

Interferometric (or capacitive) sensing

Current Specifications:

Power range: 25-500 W

Uncertainty: 3.2 % (k=2)

Noise equivalent power: 260 mW/√Hz

Vibration isolation: 15 dB

Technology readiness level: 4

Reference:

A.B. Artusio-Glimpse, et al., Optics Express, 28, 13310

(2020).

The “Smart Mirror”: Noninvasively measuring laser power

M

eetGregCooksey,

Ph.D.,

Biomedical Engineer , National Institute of Standards and Technology

MeetPaul

PatronePh.D.,

StaffScientist , National Institute of Standards an

d

Technology

Mass flow – Gravimetric standard (Traceable)

Heat Transfer Method (e.g. Sensirion, Bronkhorst)

Front Tracking (Traceable)

Particle Velocimetry (Traceable-Lite)

Considerations

Accuracy

Dynamic Range

Response Time

Deployability

Commercial products and photos are for demonstration only - not endorsement by NIST






Regenerative Medicine Cancer Screening

Drug Discovery Drug Screening

Yoon Lab, University of Michigan

How can we compare one measurement to another?

How do instrument control choices affect outcomes?

flow rate & focusing, optics, amplifier gains

What do the measurements tell us about a population?
Exhibit 10.17




MODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AND TERMINATION AGREEMENT





THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of the __ day of June, 2011, to amend that certain Change in Control and Termination Agreement made and entered into as of the ___ day of _____, ____ (the “Change in Control Agreement”) by and between Modine Manufacturing Company, a Wisconsin corporation (the “Company”) and ______________ (“Executive”).




WHEREAS, the Company has previously entered into the Change in Control Agreement with Executive; and




WHEREAS, the Company and Executive wish to amend the Change in Control Agreement to revise the definition of “Change in Control” to reflect the intent of the parties;




NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Executive agree as follows:




1.           Section 2(e) of the Change in Control Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:




(e)           A Change in Control shall be deemed to take place on the occurrence of either of the following events:




(i)           The effective time of (A) a merger or consolidation of Employer with one or more other corporations as a result of which the holders of the outstanding capital stock of Employer entitled to vote in elections of directors (“Voting Power”) immediately prior to such merger or consolidation (other than the surviving or resulting corporation of any Affiliate or Associate thereof) hold less than 50% of the Voting Power of the surviving or resulting corporation, or (B) a transfer of 30% of the Voting Power, or a Substantial Portion of the Property, of Employer other than to an entity of which Employer owns at least 50% of the Voting Power; or




(ii)           During any period of 24 months that ends during the Term, regardless of whether such period commences before or after the effective date of this Agreement, the persons who at the beginning of such 24-month period were directors of Employer cease for any reason to constitute at least a majority of the Board of Directors of Employer.




2.           Except as expressly amended herein, the Change in Control Agreement remains unchanged and continues in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto set their hand as of the date first above written.




MODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY






By: Thomas A. Burke, President and CEO
Additional Slide under AMTech

• The subcommittee strongly endorses the AmTech

program

• Excellence of the proposal is the first criteria. (Excellence 

as defined on earlier version of the power point) 

• Synergy with NIST lab capabilities is beneficial but not a 

requirement for judging the proposals.

• NIST lab leadership should use the output of the AMTech

process as input for lab program development .

• Principles for Intellectual Property Rights IPR management 

are critical to the success of the program. SC strongly 

recommends NIST to develop guidelines for efficient IPR 

management within the consortia 
• Input on Advanced Manufacturing goes into 

final VCAT report

• Feedback on AMTech will be a separate 

document, which may be disseminated 

through various channels

• Changes noted today will be incorporated into 

Word document, circulated to SC within a 

week (10/26) and to full VCAT within 2 weeks 

(11/2). Feedback due 11/8.
Advanced Manufacturing Portfolio in the Labs 

• The Manufacturing SC strongly endorses NIST Laboratory research programs 

that will lead to enabling capabilities in advanced manufacturing across sectors

• Despite entering an era of constrained resources, it is important that the NIST 

laboratories continue to grow to better position them to advance U.S. 

manufacturing competitiveness. Given the NIST charter, it is the laboratory 

best-positioned to support the U.S. advanced manufacturing agenda.

– World-class measurements and standards are critical to enhance U. S. 

manufacturing competitiveness

– The NIST Laboratories provide that core capability, which crosses all industries. 

– Focusing on the interfaces across industry sectors enhances our ability to innovate 

and be more competitive. NIST is ideally positioned to recognize these interfaces 

and exploit maximum advantage. For example, NCNR (from aerospace and 

automotive to bio-manufacturing), multi-scale visualization (from nano-scale 

through micron size) [to be filled in]; interoperability standards

• The SC encourages building on the recent progress through the continued 

development of a deeper strategic plan in areas of importance to the Nation’s 

manufacturing competitiveness

• The SC endorses NIST playing a strong role in the Advanced Manufacturing 

Partnership
Start End Duration Title

7:00 AM 7:10 AM 0:10 Welcome/Logistics

7:10 AM 7:30 AM 0:20 CTS Challenge Data (LDC)

7:30 AM 8:00 AM 0:30 CTS Challenge Overview, Results & Analysis

8:00 AM 8:10 AM 0:10 Break

8:10 AM 8:30 AM 0:20 THUEE Team Presentation

8:30 AM 8:50 AM 0:20 DAIC-JHU Team Presentation

8:50 AM 9:10 AM 0:20 VAST-SCUT Team Presentation

9:10 AM 9:30 AM 0:20 I4U Team Presentation

9:30 AM 9:40 AM 0:10 Break

9:40 AM 10:00 AM 0:20 STC Team Presentation

10:00 AM 10:20 AM 0:20 Veridas Team Presentation

10:20 AM 10:40 AM 0:20 BiometricVox Team Presentation

10:40 AM 11:00 AM 0:20 BGU Team Presentation

11:00 AM 11:20 AM 0:20 JHU-MIT Team Presentation

11:20 AM 11:30 AM 0:10 Break

11:30 AM 12:00 PM 0:30 Discussion/Future Plans

8:00 AM 8:10 AM 0:10 Welcome/Logistics Day 1

8:10 AM 8:40 AM 0:30 SRE'21 Data (LDC)

8:40 AM 9:30 AM 0:50 SRE'21 Overview, Results & Analysis

9:30 AM 9:40 AM 0:10 Break

9:40 AM 10:10 AM 0:30 Team 1 Presentation

10:10 AM 10:40 AM 0:30 Team 2 Presentation

10:40 AM 10:50 AM 0:10 Break

10:50 AM 11:20 AM 0:30 Team 3 Presentation

11:20 AM 11:50 AM 0:30 Team 4 Presentation

11:50 AM 12:00 PM 0:10 Break

12:00 PM 12:30 PM 0:30 Discussion Day 1

8:00 AM 8:10 AM 0:10 Welcome/Logistics Day 2

8:10 AM 8:40 AM 0:30 Team 5 Presentation

8:40 AM 9:10 AM 0:30 Team 6 Presentation

9:10 AM 9:20 AM 0:10 Break

9:20 AM 9:50 AM 0:30 Team 7 Presentation

9:50 AM 10:20 AM 0:30 Team 8 Presentation

10:20 AM 10:30 AM 0:10 Break

10:30 AM 11:00 AM 0:30 Team 9 Presentation

11:00 AM 11:30 AM 0:30 Team 10 Presentation

11:30 AM 11:40 AM 0:10 Break

11:40 AM 12:10 PM 0:30 Discussion/Future Plans Day 2

Wednesday December 15

Thursday December 16

2021 NIST Speaker Recognition Evaluation Workshop

AGENDA

December 14-16, 2021

 U.S. Eastern Time (UTC-5)

Tuesday, December 14