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

DHCP Client 

I4-Interoperability: DHCP-Client-v1.1

Applicable Profile: NIST SP 500-267 A profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0, 

July 2008.

Configuration Option: DHCP-Client 

Test Specification Id: 

• [DHCPv6-Interoperability] IPv6 Ready DHCPv6 Interoperability Test Suite, Revision 

1.1.1 , [editor: IPv6 Ready Logo ]. 

Reference: 

• [RFC 3315]Droms, R. J. Bound, B. Volz, T. Lemon, C. Perkins, M. Carney, Dynamic 

Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6), July, 2003 

Interoperability Partner Requirements: 

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

evidence of interoperability with three or more independent implementations of IPv6. 

The three implementations must include at least one Host and at least one Router.

• Can not change Target nodes once testing has begun. 

DHCPv6-Interoperability 

If your Device Under Test (DUT) Type is Host: 

• DUT = TAR-Client1 for all tests. 

• TAR-Server1 = Independent Implementation Device B 

• TAR-Relay-Agent1 = Independent Implementation Device C 

• Third Interoperability Partner is satisfied by executing the test specification again using 

the following:

o TAR-Server1 = Independent Implemenation Device D 
DHCP Client Test Check List

Reference Test Specification 

Id Test Number Device Type

RFC 3315 DHCPv6-

Interoperability DHCPInterop.1.1: DHCPv6 Initialization Host 

RFC 3315 DHCPv6-

Interoperability 

DHCPInterop.1.2: Client Initiated: Transmission of Confirm 

messages 

Host 

RFC 3315 DHCPv6-

Interoperability 

DHCPInterop1.3: Client Initiated: Transmission of Renew 

messages 

Host 

RFC 3315 DHCPv6-

Interoperability 

DHCPInterop.1.4: Client Initiated: Transmission of Rebind 

messages 

Host 

RFC 3315 DHCPv6-

Interoperability 

DHCPInterop.1.5: Client Initiated: Transmission of Release 

messages 

Host 

RFC 3315 DHCPv6-

Interoperability 

DHCPInterop.1.6: Client Initiated: Transmission of Decline 

messages 

Host 

RFC 3315 DHCPv6-

Interoperability 

DHCPInterop1.7 Server Initiated: Transmission of Advertise 

messages with NoAddrsAvail Host 

RFC 3315 DHCPv6-

Interoperability 

DHCPInterop.1.8: Server Initiated: Transmission of Reply 

messages with NotOnLink Host 

RFC 3315 DHCPv6-

Interoperability 

DHCPInterop.1.9: Relay-Agent Basic Message Exchanges (A) 

(B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Host 

* The objective of this test selection sheet is to provide a reference for available test 

specifications that identifies tests applicable to the USGv6 Profile.
The "correct" classifications, the plurality classifications for the
systems participating in the First Census OCR Systems Conference, and
a key to the writer who produced each image on NIST TEST DATA 1 are in
the file TEST1_AN.ZIP on this disk.  This file must be unzipped with
the PKUNZIP utility, which is in the DOS directory on TEST DATA 1, and
which must be run on a computer under the MS-DOS operating system.
This utility is licensed only for this purpose and may not be used
for any other purpose without registering the software as described
when PKUNZIP is run without any command line arguments.

When PKUNZIP -D TEST1_AN.ZIP is run under MS-DOS, it will create
the tree structure

TEST1
|________________
|       |       |
DIGIT   LOWER   UPPER

Each subdirectory will contain the CLS files for the MIS files on
TESTDATA1, the HYP files for the plurality hypotheses (vote_p) for
the same MIS files, and the WRT files that identify the writer of
each character in each MIS file image.  The resulting tree consists
of a little over 1.6 Megabytes.  This is the minimum amount of disk
space required because there is allocation overhead, which can be
surprisingly large (factors of 1.5 to 6 depending on hard disk
organization).

The CLS and HYP files are formatted as described in the DOC directory
on TESTDATA1, and contain the type of information described therein.

The WRT files are in the MFS format, which is also described in the DOC
directory on TESTDATA1.  These files provide an index that identifies
the form that was the source of each segmented character on TESTDATA1.
Each form was filled out by a different writer, so this index separates
all 500 writers into separate categories.  Each line after the first
in each WRT files has an entry such as:

       f0023_63

The 0023 identifies the writer (from writer 0000 through writer 0499)
that printed the character on the same line in the MIS file.  The 63
indicates the variant of the form that was actually filled out by
writer 0023.

EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
               NATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.

                                                         YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31,
                                            ----------------------------------------------
                                             1996      1995      1994      1993      1992
                                            ======    ======    ======    ======    ======
                                                (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
<S>                                        <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>

PRIMARY
  Average shares outstanding                15,472    15,164    15,438    15,915    16,002
  Dilutive stock options -- based
    on the treasury stock method
    using average market price                 213        61        97       151       136
                                           -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
      TOTAL                                 15,685    15,225    15,535    16,066    16,138
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
Net income (loss)                          $22,259   $13,398   $(2,509)  $16,508   $15,474
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
Net income (loss) per share                $  1.42   $  0.88   $ (0.16)  $  1.03   $  0.96
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
FULLY DILUTED
  Average shares outstanding                15,472    15,164    15,438    15,915    16,002
  Dilutive stock options -- based on
    the treasury stock method using
    the higher of year-end market
    price or average market price              262       148        99       164       199
  Assumed conversion of convertible
    subordinated debenture                      --        --        --        --       361
                                           -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
      TOTAL                                 15,734    15,312    15,537    16,079    16,562
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
Net income (loss)                          $22,259   $13,398   $(2,509)  $16,508   $15,474
Add interest on convertible subordinated
  debenture, net of the income tax effect       --        --        --        --       363
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
                                           $22,259   $13,398   $(2,509)  $16,508   $15,837
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======   =======

Net income (loss) per share                $  1.42   $  0.88   $ (0.16)  $  1.03   $  0.96
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======   =======

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
CORESTATES FINANCIAL CORP AND SUBSIDIARIES

EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Three Months Ended           Twelve Months Ended
                                                      December 31,                 December 31,
                                                  --------------------         -------------------
                                                    1996        1995             1996       1995     
                                                  --------    --------         --------   --------    
<S>                                               <C>         <C>              <C>        <C>    
(A) Net Income ...........................        $195,546    $192,145         $649,144   $655.176
                                                  ========    ========         ========   ========
EARNINGS PER SHARE

Based on average common shares outstanding
------------------------------------------

(B) Average shares outstanding ...........         215,866     219,915          218,812    222,268

(A/B)  Net Income ........................        $   0.91    $   0.87         $   2.97   $   2.95
                                                  ========    ========         ========   ========
Based on average common and common
----------------------------------
equivalent shares outstanding
-----------------------------
Primary:
(C) Average common equivalent shares .....           2,156       2,438            2,184      2,398
(D) Average common and common equivalent
           shares (B + C) ................         218,022     222,353          220,996    224,666
(A/D) Net Income (1) .....................        $   0.90    $   0.86         $   2.94   $   2.92
                                                  ========    ========         ========   ========
Fully diluted:
(E) Average common equivalent shares .....           2,283       2,399            2,888      2,747
(F) Average common and common equivalent
           shares (B + E) ................         218,149     222,314          221,700    225,015
(A/F)  Net Income (1) ....................        $   0.90    $   0.86         $   2.93   $   2.91
                                                  ========    ========         ========   ========
</TABLE>
----------------------------------
(1) Dilution is less than 3%.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICK JOSEPH CHAREST,

AIS 182262,

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-0067-CG-C

)

BILLY MITCHEM, )

)

Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Amended Order entered this date (Doc. 86), it is 

hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that petitioner’s request for 

habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED for lack of 

jurisdiction, or alternatively, is DENIED because Charest has abused the writ, and 

DISMISSED because the petition is time-barred.

 DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 2013.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00067-CG-C Document 87 Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 1
1

| Vesting Schedule: | [__of the shares vest one year after the Vesting Commencement Date; the balance of the shares vest in a series of __  successive equal monthly installments measured from the first anniversary of the Vesting Commencement Date.] |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Payment: | By one or a combination of the following items (described in the Option Agreement): |
|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o By cash or check |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | o By bank draft or money order payable to the Company |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pursuant to a Regulation T Program if the Shares are publicly traded |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o By delivery of already-owned shares if the Shares are publicly traded |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o If and only to the extent this option is a Nonstatutory Stock Option, and subject to the Company’s consent at the time of exercise, by a “net exercise” arrangement2 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

 

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4405 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4405

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl 
                        Tetramethylbutylphenol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2004

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl 
                        Tetramethylbutylphenol.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.04      Methylene Bis-      Free         Free             No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Benzotriazolyl                                                     31/07
                         Tetramethylbutylp
                         henol (CAS
                         No.103597-45-1)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3824.90.28)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60485 Su m m ar y Cal endar
OB I DI O AA L VA RA DO P et i t i on er

v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R, U S ATTORN EY GE N ERA L Res po nde nt

Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 29 916 199

B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * O bi di o A

. A lvarad o petit i on s t h i s c ou rtf or r e v i ew of

t h e B oard of Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ s (B IA ’ s ) s u m m a r yd is m is s a l o f h is a p p e a l. A lv a r a d o fa ils t o a d d r e s s th e B IA ’s r e a s o n s fo rth e s u m m a r yd is m is s a l, s p e c if ic a ll yth e B IA ’s concl u si on s t h at hi s n ot i ce of ap pea l fai l ed t o “ m ean i n gf u l l y ap pri se t h e B oard
o f t h e s p e c i f

i c r e a s o n s u n d e r ly in gth e c h a ll e n g e to th e I m m ig r a t io n J u d g e ’s de c i s i o n, ” t hathi s br i e f w as unt i m e l y, and t hathe fail e d t o “r e as o nab l y e xp l ai n” United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60485

2 hi s fail ur e t o f

i l e at i m e l y br i e f

. Ac c o r di ngly, a ny argu m en t s r e l at i ng t o t he B IA ’ s s u m m a r yd is m is s a l o f h is a p p e a l a r e a b a n d o n e d
. S o a d jed e v . A sh cr oft , 324 F .3d 8 3 0 , 8 3 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). F u rt h er, becau se A lvarad o fai l ed to exh au sthi s c l ai m s by presenti ng th em to th e B IA , w e a r e w ith o u t ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e c la im s . S ee8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 5 2 (d )( 1 ); T

oledo-Hernan d ez v. Mu ka sey , 5 2 1 F .3d 3 3 2 , 3 3 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); T o wn s e n dv . I

NS , 79 9 F
. 2 d17 9 , 1 8 1 -82 (5th C i r. 1 9 8 6 ) (con cl u sion a lstatem en ts inth e n o tice of a p p e a l didn o t p re se rv e cla im forth e B IA ’ s r e v iew ). P ET I T I ON D I S M I S S ED
.
#### James Jefferson McLAIN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 77-2423.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 28, 1980.

John P. Nelson, Jr., Richard G. Vinet, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Moise W. Dennery, J. William Vaudry, Jr., New Orleans, La., David A. Donohoe, Edward F. Schiff, Washington, D. C., for Latter and Blum.

Roy L. Price, Metairie, La., Cynthia Samuel, Tulane University School of Law, New Orleans, La., for Sandra, Inc.

Edward F. Wegmann, New Orleans, La., for Waquespack, Pratt, Inc.

Arthur L. Ballin, Frank C. Dudenhefer, Harry McCall, Jr., Robert S. Rooth, New Orleans, La., for Real Estate Bd. of New Orleans.

Harry S. Redmon, Jr., Rutledge Clement, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Gertrude Gardner, Inc.

*536ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before GEWIN, GODBOLD and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

By its judgment entered on February 5, 1980, — U.S. —, 100 S.Ct. 502, 62 L.Ed.2d 441, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment in this cause, 583 F.2d 1315 (5th Cir. 1978), and remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of the Court. In compliance with the mandate of the Supreme Court, we hereby REMAND this cause to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for further proceedings in conformity with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1430 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 

to use certain previously completed environmental assessments and environmental impact statements to satisfy the review requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2023 

Mr. VALADAO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 

of Agriculture to use certain previously completed environmental assessments and environmental impact statements to satisfy the review requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Determination of 

5 NEPA Adequacy Streamlining Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1430 IH

1 SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

2 POLICY ACT ADEQUACY. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary concerned shall use 

4 previously completed environmental assessments and envi5 ronmental impact statements to satisfy the requirements 

6 of section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act 

7 of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) with respect to any major Fed8 eral action if such Secretary determines that— 

9 (1) the new proposed action is substantially the 

10 same as a previously analyzed proposed action or al11 ternative analyzed in a previous environmental as12 sessment or environmental impact statement; and 

13 (2) the effects of the proposed action are sub14 stantially the same as the effects analyzed in such 

15 existing environmental assessments or environmental 

16 impact statements. 

17 (b) SECRETARY CONCERNED.—In this section, the 

18 term ‘‘Secretary concerned’’ means— 

19 (1) with respect to public lands, the Secretary 

20 of the Interior; and 

21 (2) with respect to National Forest System 

22 Lands, the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
11181.

#### Savannah Electric Company *v.*Falcone.

Decided March 18, 1920.

Action for damages; from city court of Savannah ■— Judge Freeman. October 28, 1919.

See same case, 24 *Ga. App.*69.

Smith, J,

1. The motion for a new trial in this ease being based on the usual general grounds only, and there" being some evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, this court will not interfere.

2. 3STot being fully convinced that the case was brought to this court for delay only, the request of the defendant in error that damages be awarded against the plaintiff in error, as provided in section 6213 of the Civil Code of 1910, is denied.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*

*104
      *Osborne, Lawrence & Abrahams,*for plainiff in error.

*M. H. Bernstein, F. P. McIntire,*contra.
#### STATE v. McHONE

No. 148A91-2

Case below: Surry County Superior County

Upon consideration of defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari to review the Superior Court orders dated 26 August and 9 December 1996 denying defendant’s motion for appropriate relief, the petition is allowed 5 June 1997 for the limited purpose of reviewing the following issues: (1) defendant’s right to a hearing on his motion for appro*287priate relief pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1420(c); and (2) defendant’s right, if any, to discovery pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1415(f).
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00595

- CV

Agua Special Utility District

v. Pedro Guajardo and Esther Guajardo

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 8 of Hidalgo County , Texas

Trial Cause No. CCD

- 0080

- H

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF AP PEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. February 12, 2015
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC BLANDING, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0738-CG-B 

 :

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., :

 :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

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

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of March, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00738-CG-B Document 7 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ALEX RYLE,

Plaintiff Below, Appellant,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OUTEN, LIEUTENANT VERONICA TILGHMAN,
SERGEANT MATTHEW DUTTON, SERGEANT BURLEY, MAJOR JASON SCHAFFER, and BUREAU CHIEF SHANE TROXLER,

Defendants Below, Appellee s

. §

§ No. 28, 2024 § § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § C.A. No. N23C-02-192 (N) § § § § § § § § § § §

Submitted: July 26, 2024 Decided: September 24, 2024

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS

, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we find it

evident that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the

reasons stated in the Superior Court’s January 5, 2024 Memorandum Opinion. 1

1 Ryle v. Outen , 2024 WL 66022 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 5, 2024).2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the

Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice