alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Version 1 / Date of Issue: 10.29.15 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

OSAC Research Needs Assessment Form

Title of research need:

Keywords:

Submitting subcommittee(s): Date Approved:

(If SAC review identifies additional subcommittees, add them to the box above.)

Background information:

1. Description of research need:

2. Key bibliographic references relating to this research need:

3a. In what ways would the research results improve current laboratory capabilities?

Images extracted from video sources appear to differ in quality when the same video data is 

visualized on different computer systems using the same extraction technique as well as different 

extraction techniques. Research is needed to determine if computer hardware is a factor affecting 

image quality when extracting images from video.

Retrieval of Video Evidence and Production of Working Copies from Digital CCTV Systems v2.0

Publication No 66/08 – Home Office Scientific Development Branch

It would assist in determining and evaluating technology for purchase by a laboratory to process 

video evidence.

Factors Affecting Image Quality When Extracting a Still from Video

VITAL 1/28/16
Version 1 / Date of Issue: 10.29.15 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

3b. In what ways would the research results improve understanding of the scientific basis for the 

subcommittee(s)?

3c. In what ways would the research results improve services to the criminal justice system?

4. Status assessment (I, II, III, or IV): 

This research need has been identified by one or more subcommittees of OSAC and is being provided as an 

informational resource to the community.

Major gap 

in current 

knowledge

Minor gap 

in current 

knowledge

No or limited

current research 

is being 

conducted

I III

Existing current 

research is being 

conducted

II IV

It would assist in establishing standards for video forensic analysis process of creating a working 

copy from proprietary video data.

It would allow for the assertion that the quality was maintained during the process of creating a 

working copy.

I
Version 1 / Date of Issue: 10.29.15 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

// Approval date:

(Approval is by majority vote of subcommittee. Once approved, forward to SAC.)

1. Does the SAC agree with the research need? Yes ⃝ No ⃝ 

2. Does the SAC agree with the status assessment? Yes ⃝ No ⃝

If no, what is the status assessment of the SAC:

Approval date:

(Approval is by majority vote of SAC. Once approved, forward to NIST for posting.)

1/28/16 Subcommittee

SAC

6/15/16
EXHIBIT 99.2

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


In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of LIFE ENERGY & TECHNOLOGY  HOLDINGS
INC. (the  "Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ending  November 30, 2002, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I,  Michael  Liberatore,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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/ Michael Liberatore
-----------------------------
Michael Liberatore
Chief Financial Officer
April 10, 2003
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.2



                                NETEGRITY, INC.

                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

                                 NETEGRITY, INC.

                            2000 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


     In accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the Netegrity, Inc. 2000
Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

     1.   Section 14 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following
sentence to the end of such section:

          "In the event that shares are used to satisfy a tax withholding
          obligation under this Plan, the repurchased or withheld shares shall
          not represent an amount in excess of the Company's minimum statutory
          tax withholding obligation (based on minimum statutory withholding
          rates for federal and state tax purposes, including payroll taxes,
          that are applicable to such supplemental income)."

     2.   Except as herein above provided, the Plan is hereby ratified and
confirmed in all respects.



                                           NETEGRITY, INC.



                                           By: /s/ Anthony J. Medaglia, Jr.
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Anthony J. Medaglia, Jr.
                                               Secretary


Adopted by the Board of Directors:  June 30, 2000
Stockholder Approval Not Necessary
1

 On September 18, 2006 counsel for petitioner moved the Court for an extension of

time, up to and including September 20, 2006, in which to file any objections to the Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. 23) The Magistrate Judge granted the motion on September 19,

2006.(Doc. 25) The extended deadline has now passed and no objections have been filed.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NEIL WOODYARD, JR., : 

Petitioner, : 

v. : 

CIVIL ACTION 05-0705-KD-M 

DONAL CAMPBELL, : 

Respondent. : 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this

file, and there having been no objections filed 1, the

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that this habeas petition be DENIED and that

this petition be DISMISSED.

DONE this 28th day of September 2006.

 /s/ Kristi K. DuBose

 KRISTI K. DuBOSE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00705-KD-M Document 25 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Wm. Blackerter *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law — Indictment.

While only one offense may be charged in an indictment, the mode and means of committing that offense may be stated in the alternative.

Appeals.

The court of appeals has no power to reverse a judgment of conviction on indictments for an error in overruling a demurrer.

*542APPEAL PROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT.

November 26, 1875.

*Russell & Averitt, for appellant. Thomas E. Moss, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

Each count in the indictment charges a public offense. Sec. 271 of the Criminal Code provides that “The only ground upon which a judgment shall be arrested is that the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute a public offense within the jurisdiction of the court.” The motion to arrest the judgment was, therefore, properly overruled. Sec. 125, Criminal Code, provides that “An indictment, except in the cases mentioned' in Sec. 126, must charge but one offense; but the mode and means of committing that offense may be stated in the alternative.” The counts united in this indictment are not embraced within the exceptions, nor are they such offenses as can be joined in an indictment as provided by Sec. 126.

By Sec. 164, a demurrer is proper when more than one offense is charg-ed in the indictment, except as provided in Sec. 126. This objection by demurrer may, however, be avoided by dismissing one of the counts of the indictment as provided by Sec. 168. Although the attorney for the commonwealth failed to dismiss either count, still this court has no power to reverse a judgment of conviction on indictments for felonious acts or misdemeanors for an error in overruling a demurrer. Secs. 334 and 348, Criminal Code.

The instructions were more favorable to the appellant than the commonwealth. The jury was told that Mobley must have been guilty of the malicious stabbing, and that the appellant was present, aiding and abetting in the commission of the offense, before they would find him guilty. They were also told that the accused had the right to interfere to preserve the peace and to prevent the commission of a felony; and if the party stábbed was about to commit a felony by taking the life of Mobley without cause, the accused had the right to use such means as was necessary to prevent it. Upon the facts, we are inclined to the opinion that this last instruction should not have been given; and therefore the appellant • cannot complain.

The judgment is *affirmed.*
Exhibit 32.1





Certification


Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350





In connection with the annual report of Modine Manufacturing Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas A. Burke, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, 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, 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.





Date:
June 14, 2011





/s/Thomas A. Burke


Thomas A. Burke


President and Chief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Richard Adams *v.*William Delcher & Son.

Appeals — Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Act of 1858 the court of appeals has no jurisdiction of an appeal where the amount in controversy, exclusive of costs, is less than fifty dollars.

APPEAL FROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT.

January 24, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

This appeal is prosecuted by appellant from a judgment in his favor for $43.75, with intérest from the nth of November, 1874, (the date of the judgment) till paid, but he was adjudged to pay appellees their costs by them expended in the court below, and also from the refusal of the court below to reconsider and to change the judgment of the day before allowing to appellees their costs on the appeal to the circuit court and refusing to adjudge to appellant his costs in said court against appellees.

*584*W. C. Ireland, I. W. Hampton, for appellant.*

*Elliott & Prichard, for appellees.*

The first question presented is, “Has this court jurisdiction of the case?” By an act of the legislature approved- February 9, 1858, the 15th section of the Civil Code was amended, and the jurisdiction of this court was increased over all judgments in actions for the recovery of money or personal property, where the value in controversy is fifty dollars or over that amount. Sec. 17, Civ. Code, provides that costs are not to be included in estimating the value necessary to give jurisdiction to the court of appeals. Sec. 2, Art. 22, Chap. 28, General Statutes, p. 311, provides that no appeal shall be taken to the court of appeals from a judgment for the recovery of money or personal property if the value in controversy be less than fifty dollars, exclusive of costs.

Appellant’s demand for which he brought his original suit in'the police court of Ashland was $46.25, and the recovery in that court was $45. On an appeal to the quarterly court the judgment was affirmed, and on the appeal to the circuit court that judgment was reduced to $43.75. It is obvious that at no- time the value in controversy has reached $50, exclusive of costs, and it is difficult to perceive how this court can get jurisdiction of the case unless the statutes cited be totally disregarded, or unless the court will assume that as the costs, which are amere incident to' the judgment, are adjudged to appellee, they exceed $50. The shadow would thus be substituted for the body and substance of the matter in controversy, and upon that ground assume jurisdiction where the legislature never intended to confer it, a power which we certainly cannot assume to exercise.

This court having no jurisdiction the appeal is *dismissed.*
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 on Form 10-Q of Aphton Corporation
(the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frederick W. Jacobs, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Chief
Accounting 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, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 7, 2004



By:

/s/ Frederick W. JacobsFrederick W. JacobsVice President, Chief Financial Officer,Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 10.24

Continuation of certain benefits under the Employment Agreement

effective December 1, 2003 between National Bank of the Redwoods

and Stephen A. Fleming, as amended March 31, 2004

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Registrant has approved an extension of Mr. Fleming’s housing allowance of $1,800 per month through November 2004, subject to the terms and conditions of Mr.Fleming’s Employment Agreement.  This extension was not set forth in a formal written agreement.  Pursuant to Item 601(b)(10)(iii)(A) of Regulation S-K, the Registrant has filed this description of the extension as an exhibit.
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF FOUNDRY NETWORKS, INC.



|Name                                       |  | Jurisdiction of Registration | 
|------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------- | 
|                                           |  |                              | 
|Foundry
      Networks International Inc.  |  | Barbados                     | 
|Foundry
      Networks Ltd.                |  | United
      Kingdom         | 
|Foundry
      Networks GmbH                |  | Germany                      | 
|Foundry
      Networks France SARL         |  | France                       | 
|Foundry
      Networks Singapore, PTE Ltd. |  | Singapore                    | 
|Foundry
      Networks Nederland BV        |  | Netherlands                  | 
|Foundry
      Networks Canada Co.          |  | Canada                       | 
|Foundry
      Networks Italia Srl.         |  | Italy                        | 
|Foundry
      Networks Japan KK            |  | Japan                        | 
|Foundry
      Networks do Brasil Ltda.     |  | Brazil                       | 
|Foundry
      Networks Holding Co.         |  | Delaware,
      U.S.A        | 

72

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERNESTO GUDINO-BARBOSA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-72433

Agency No. A200-868-454

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 25, 2015** 

Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Ernesto Gudino-Barbosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for

cancellation of removal and his request for a continuance, and denying his motion

FILED

SEP 03 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse

of discretion the denial of a continuance and motion to remand, and review for

substantial evidence findings of fact. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268-69,

1274 (9th Cir. 2011); Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1097-98 (9th Cir.

2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that GudinoBarbosa failed to establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence

in the United States, where his testimony indicated that he left the United States

sometime between January and May 2000 and returned in October 2000. See 8

U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), (d)(2) (departure in excess of 90 days breaks continuous

physical presence). 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Gudino-Barbosa’s request

for a continuance, because he testified that he did not have any documents to show

when he visited Mexico, and otherwise failed to demonstrate good cause. See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown); see Singh,

638 F.3d at 1274 (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on . . .

speculations.”).

2 13-72433
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gudino-Barbosa’s motion to

remand, where he failed to establish the evidence he submitted was previously

unavailable and material. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

We lack jurisdiction over Gudino-Barbosa’s claim that he was denied due

process, because he failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Tijani v.

Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 13-72433
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

              COMBINED WITH 50% OWNED UNCONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       1999     1998    1997    1996    1995
           FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31             -----    ----    ----    ----    ----
                   ($ IN MILLIONS)
<S>                                                    <C>      <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations.............  $(112)   $ 82    $106    $ 65    $(55)
Add
  Interest...........................................    146     133     124     102      91
  Portion of rentals representative of interest
     factor..........................................     18      12      12       8       2
  Preferred stock dividend requirements of
     majority-owned subsidiaries.....................     --       1      --      --      --
  Income expense (benefit) and other taxes on
     income..........................................    (47)     67      75      67      (3)
  Amortization of interest capitalized...............     --      --      --       1       1
  Undistributed (earnings) losses of affiliated
     companies in which less than a 50% voting
     interest is owned...............................     --      --      --      --      --
                                                       -----    ----    ----    ----    ----
          Earnings as defined........................  $   5    $295    $317    $243    $ 36
                                                       =====    ====    ====    ====    ====
Interest.............................................  $ 146    $133    $124    $102    $ 91
Interest capitalized.................................     --       1       1       3       2
Portion of rentals representative of interest
  factor.............................................     18      12      12       8       2
Preferred stock dividend requirements of
  majority-owned subsidiaries on a pre-tax basis.....     --       2      --      --      --
                                                       -----    ----    ----    ----    ----
          Fixed charges as defined...................  $ 164    $148    $137    $113    $ 95
                                                       =====    ====    ====    ====    ====
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges...................     NM    1.99    2.31    2.15      NM
                                                       =====    ====    ====    ====    ====
</TABLE>

In 1999 and 1995, earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $159
million and $59 million, respectively.
#### The Indianapolis, Bloomington, and Western Railway Co. *v.*Ferguson.

*Practice.—Evidence.—Cross-Examination of*Plaintiff.—Where the cause ' assigned in a motion for anew trial was, that the court erred in refusing to permit a question to be asked the plaintiff on his cross-examination, and there was no evidence showing that the question was as to matters testified to by the witness on his examination in *chief;*

*Held,*that the overruling of the motion was not error.

*Same.-—Damages on Affirmance.—Stay of*Execution,—Damages cannot be given in the Supreme Court on affirmance, unless there has been a stay of execution.

642

APPEAL from the Montgomery Circuit Court.

Downey, J.

This was an action by the appellee against the appellant, to *recover*the value of a house and furniture therein of the appellee, which it is alleged was negligently set on fire by sparks frota a locomotive of the appellant. The issue was formed by a general denial of the complaiijt. There was a trial by a jury, a verdict for the plaintiff] a> motion for a new trial overruled, and judgment on the verdict.

The only alleged error properly assigned is the refusal of the court to grant a new trial.

There is a bill of exceptions showing that “ after the plaintiff had been examined in chief, as a witness in his own behalf,the attorney for the defendant asked him the following question, on cross-examination, to wit: ‘How much was the farm, upon which the house stood, about which you have testified, depreciated in value by the burning of said house?’” The court, on objection by the plaintiff, refused to allow the question to be answered.

No point is discussed or insisted upon, except as to the refusal of the court to allow the answer to this question on cross-examination.

Although the question to the witness assumes that he had testified about the house, it does not appear what his testimony was, or that the question asked was relevant to the *244matter concerning which the witness had given evidence in his examination in chief. A cross-examination must be limited to the matters about which the witness has testified in his first examination. The court may have refused to allow the witness to answer the question because the cross-examination attempted did not conforms to this rule.

y. *C. Black, P. S. Kennedy,*• and *W. T. Brush,*for appellant.

y. *McCabe*and *T. Patterson,*for appellee.

We are asked by counsel for the appellee to give damages on the affirmance of the judgment. But we cannot do this, for the reason that it does not appear that there has been any stay of execution in the case, either by the execution of an appeal bond, or by obtaining a supersedeas and giving bond. It is only in such cases that damages can be awarded on an affirmance of the judgment by this court. 2 G. & H. 276, sec. 569.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.