alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USGv6 Test Selection Tables 

IPsec OSPF for IPv6

I9-Interoperability: Routing Protocol R1v1.1 

Applicable Profile: NIST SP 500-267B Revision 1 USGv6 Profile – November 2020. 

Test Specification Id: 

• [OSPFv3-Interoperability] OSPFv3 Interoperability Test Plan, [editor: UNH InterOperability Laboratory]. 

Interoperability Partner Requirements: 

• Any host or router claiming compliance with the USGv6 profile MUST demonstrate evidence of 

interoperability with one or more independent implementations of IPv6. Routers must demonstrate 

evidence of interoperability with at least one independent implementation of OSPF-IPsec in order to claim 

support for this capability. 

• Target nodes must not change once testing has begun.

Interoperability Partners:

• DUT = TR1 for all tests. 

• TAR-Router1 = Independent Implementation Device B 

• TAR-Router2 = Independent Implementation Device C 

• H1 and H2 = Any devices which can execute ping6 function 

OSPF for IPv6 Test Check List

Reference Test Specification Id Test Number Device Type

RFC 5340

RFC 4552

RFC 4301

RFC 4303

OSPFv3-

Interoperability OSPFv3.IO.5.1 IPsec Security (A)(B)(C) Router

RFC 2328

RFC 5340

RFC 4552

RFC 4301

RFC 4303

OSPFv3-

Interoperability OSPFv3.IO.5.2 IPsec Security with Virtual Link (A)(B) Router 

RFC 5340

RFC 4552

RFC 4301

RFC 4303

OSPFv3-

Interoperability

OSPFv3.IO.5.3 IPsec Algorithms and Keys

(A)(B)(C)(D)(E) Router 
References: 

• [RFC 2328] Moy J., “OSPF Version 2”, RFC 2328, DOI: 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998.

• [RFC 5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI: 

10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008. 

• [RFC 4552] Gupta M., Melam N., “Authentication/Confidentiality for OSPFv3”, RFC 4552, DOI:

10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006.

• [RFC 4301] Kent S., Seo K., “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol”, RFC 4301, DOI: 

10.17487/RFC4301, December 2005.

• [RFC 4303] Kent S., “IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)”, RFC 4303, DOI: 10.17487/RFC4303, 

December 2005.

The objective of this test selection sheet is to provide a reference for available test specifications that identifies tests 

applicable to the USGv6 Profile.
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 quarterly report of Vasomedical, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jun Ma, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Jun Ma.


Jun Ma


President & Chief Executive Officer





Dated:January 14, 2011



































EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report of Vasomedical, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan Newton, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











/s/ Jonathan Newton.


Jonathan Newton


Dated: January 14, 2011                                                                                     Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-2975

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Oscar Lamar Mims

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: April 19, 2017

Filed: May 1, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Oscar Lamar Mims guilty of conspiring to possess with intent to

distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The
district court,1

sentenced Mims to 120 months in prison. Mims’s counsel has filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the sufficiency of the

evidence, the reasonableness of the sentence, and the effectiveness of counsel.

Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 

The challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails in part because the jury

heard numerousrecorded telephone conversationsrelated to a network of individuals

involved in the distribution of heroin, and some of the calls established Mims’s

knowing participation in purchasing heroin for redistribution. See United States v.

Ramirez, 362 F.3d 521, 524 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review); United States v.

Peeler, 779 F.3d 773, 776 (8th Cir. 2015) (evidence of multiple sales of drugs

sufficient to establish conspiracy where defendant was a party to one or more

wiretapped conversations discussing aspects of heroin business, and indicating

speaker’s knowledge and involvement in common drug-distribution scheme). Mims

received the statutory minimum sentence, and there is no indication in the record that

the sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-64

(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Ineffective-assistance claims are usually best left for

proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, where the record can be developed as needed.

See United States v. Davies, 583 F.3d 1081, 1091 (8th Cir. 2009). An independent

review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous issue for review. See Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). 

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

1The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-
#### Ollie M. DARBY, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Respondent.

No. 01-3169.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 26, 2001.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) and to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
Exhibit 99.2


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


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
XVIII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB  for
the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund  Management
XVIII,  Inc.,  the  Managing General Partner of the  Partnership,
certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. 1350, as  adopted  pursuant  to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The  Report  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
          Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act
          of 1934; and

     2.   The   information  contained  in  the   Report   fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Partnership.


                           /s/ Patrick W. Keene
                               Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                               AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                               Managing General Partner
                               May 12, 2003
11191.

#### Henry *v.*American Railway Express Company.

Decided September 17, 1920.

Certiorari; from Richmond superior court ■—■ Judge Henry 0 Hammond. December 13, 1919.

*E. K. Overstreet, C. G. Reynolds,*for plaintiff in error.

*William K. Miller,*contra.

Stephens, J.

1. The answer to the writ of certiorari not having been filed at the term to which it was returnable, and no order having been taken directing the magistrate to answer, the petition for certiorari should, upon this ground, on motion of the defendant in certiorari, have been dismissed. *High*v. *Georgia Railway & Power Co.,*12 *Ga. App.*505 (77 S. E. 588). This is true although the answer was filed before the case was reached in its order for a hearing, and notwithstanding there was a local practice of permitting such delay in the filing of answers to writs of certiorari.

2. A certificate by the magistrate admitting the truth of the allegations in the petition for certiorari, which is entered upon or attached to the petition before the petition has been sanctioned or the writ of certiorari has been issued, cannot be considered as an answer to the writ of certiorari. The magistrate has no authority to answer a certiorari until after -the issuance of the writ.

3. It was' error to overrule the motion to dismiss the certiorari.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Bay View Capital Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the
Report), I, Charles G. Cooper, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:



| | 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 for the periods presented therein.

Date: November 14, 2003

| |  |                                                        
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Charles G. Cooper                                  
| |  |                                                        
| |  | Charles G. Cooper
President and Chief
Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Bay View Capital Corporation and will be retained by Bay View
Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32**
 
 **CERTIFICATION***
 **PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
 **AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vineyard National Bancorp (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigneds hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the undersigneds best knowledge and belief:
 
 (a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated this 10 th day of November, 2004.
 
 Vineyard National Bancorp("Company")/s/ *Norman A. Morales*Norman MoralesPresident and Chief Executive Officer**

/s/ *Gordon Fong*Gordon FongSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 ___________________
 
 ***** ***A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.***
Exhibit 13.1





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 Internet Gold – Golden Lines Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eli Holtzman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Eli Holtzman*


Eli Holtzman


Chief Executive Officer




June 30, 2010




*           The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           841501                    
<NAME>                          OWENS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND          
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                          14,469,028
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   2,307,042
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                17,776,070
<PP&E>                          10,254,784
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  198,362,013
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           657,735
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                      197,704,278
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    198,362,013
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                4,836,208
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                302,504
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 4,533,704
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             4,533,704
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    4,533,704
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .023
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .023
        


</TABLE>
#### Commonwealth *v.*J. Z. Turrell.

Recognizance Bond — Validity.

Where a recognizance bond does not show that the principal therein was in custody charged with a public offense, it fails to show any consideration for its execution and is invalid.

Consideration.

A recognizance bond, unlike ordinary contracts, does not import a consideration.

APPEAL FROM BALLARD CIRCUIT COURT.

September 7, 1876.

*T. E. Moss, for appellant. Bugg & Bishop, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Cofer :

As decided at the-present term in *Commonwealth v. Newton,*the circuit court had no jurisdiction of this case; but as the bond made the foundation of the proceeding is invalid, the commonwealth has not been prejudiced by the judgment appealed from.

The bond does not show that the principal therein was in custody charged with a public offense, and therefore fails to show any consideration for its execution. The bond does not, like ordinary written contracts, import a consideration. Criminal Code, Sec. 8o.

Judgment *affirmed.*
#### Andrew FLYTHE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-6496.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 29, 2001.

Andrew Flythe, pro se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

*187Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Flythe seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. *Flythe v. Angelone,*No. CA-00-537 (E.D.Va. Mar. 12, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).
| Exhibit 32.1 |   |
|--------------|--------|

**CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350****(furnished, not filed)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Warrior Energy Services Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William L. Jenkins, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ William L. JenkinsWilliam L. JenkinsPresident and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 11, 2006

 

----
#### Eastern Kentucky Railway Company *v.*Willis Gholson.

Damages — Instructions.

A railroad company is not liable for killing animals on its right of way when its agents use ordinary care and diligence to prevent such killing. . ...

Instructions.

An instruction which makes a railroad company liable for damages in killing stock, if it were possible for the engineer or fireman to have seen the stock by the use of the highest possible degree of diligence, is erroneous.

APPEAL PROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT.

January 5, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The court erred in modifying the first instruction given for the railway company. The modification makes the company responsible for killing and injuring the stock, if it was possible for the engineer or fireman to have seen them by the use of the highest possible degree of diligence.

Whilst railroad companies are liable in cases like this for ordinary neglect, they are not bound to use the utmost possible diligence.

The question is whether the agents in charge of the locomotive, having due regard for the safety of the train and passengers, and for the business of the company, could, by such care and diligence as reasonably prudent men in like circumstances generally use, have discovered the cattle in time to check the train, and thus have avoided the accident.

The owners of the stock cannot complain that the company does not keep a watch at the mouth of the tunnel to keep stock out of it. *280It has no right to negligently kill or injure stock on its road or in its tunnel; but it is not bound, to herd stock, allowed by the owners thereof to graze along the line of its road.

*E. T. Dulin, for appellant.*

*A. Duvall, for appellee.*

Instruction No. 2, given for appellant, is erroneous. The statute so modifies the common-law rule as to make railroad companies liable for injuries to stock inflicted through ordinary negligence. It is not necessary that the negligence shall be either wilful or reckless. This instruction should have been refused. For the error in modifying instruction No. 1, the judgment is *reversed*and the cause remanded for a new trial, upon principles consistent with this opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29797]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Institute of Museum and Library Services


Sunshine Act Meeting of the National Museum and Library Services 
Board

AGENCY: Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), NFAH.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Museum and Library Services Board, which advises 
the Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services in 
awarding national awards and medals, will meet by teleconference on 
February 23, 2015, to review nominations for the 2015 National Medal 
for Museum and Library Service.

DATE AND TIME: Monday, February 23, 2015, at 1 p.m. EST.

PLACE: The meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the 
Institute of Museum and Library Services. 1800 M Street NW., 9th Floor, 
Washington, DC, 20036. Telephone: (202) 653-4676.

STATUS: Closed. The meeting will be closed pursuant to subsections 
(c)(4) and (c)(9) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code 
because the Board will consider information that may disclose: Trade 
secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person 
and privileged or confidential; and information the premature 
disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate 
implementation of a proposed agency action.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Maas, Program Specialist, 
Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1800 M Street NW., 9th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20036. Telephone: (202) 653-4798.

    Signed: December 16, 2014.
Andrew Christopher,
Assistant General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014-29797 Filed 12-17-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7036-01-P