alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE STATE ex rel. NACE v. HAWES et al., Appellants.

In Banc,

November 3, 1903.

The judgment in this case is reversed upon the authority of State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes, reported at page 360 of this volume.

*408Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Ro». *S. P. Spencer,*Judge.

Reversed.

*C. W. Bates*and *Wm. F. Woerner*for appellants.

*R. L. & John Johnston*for respondent.

GANTT, J.

Mandamus, for $1,916.66 2-3, salary, as policeman, from October 17, 1895, to August 21, 1897. Judgment for relator, and respondents appealed.

Relator was appointed probationary patrolman on August 18, 1885, promoted to be a regular patrolman February 21,1886, and dropped from the rolls on October 17, Í895. His term expired February 21, 1890. After that he held as a *locum tenens*until dropped. This case is therefore like the case of State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes, reported at page 360 of this volume. The judgment of the circuit court is erroneous, and it is therefore reversed, and the writ quashed.

All concur.
USGv6 Test Selection Tables* 

Addressing Architecture Requirements 

I7-Interoperability: : Addr Arch Requirements v1.2I

Applicable Profile: NIST SP 500-267 A profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0, July 2008.

Configuration Option: None 

Test Specification Id: 

• [AddrInterop] Address Architecture Interoperability Test Specification, Version 1.4, January, 2020, [editor: 

UNH InterOperability Laboratory]. 

Reference: 

• [RFC 4193] R. Hinden, B. Haberman. "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses." RFC 4193, October 2005 

• [RFC 4291] R. Hinden, S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architechture," RFC 4291, February 2006 

• [RFC 4007] S. Deering, B. Haberman, T. Jinmei, E. Nordmark, B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address 

Architechture," RFC 4007, March 2005 

• [RFC 3879] C. Huitema, B. Carpenter, "Deprecating Site Local Addresses." RFC 3879, September 2004 

• [RFC 3484] R. Draves, "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6 IPV6)," RFC 3484, 

February 2003

• [RFC 2526] D. Johnson, S. Deering, "Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast Addresses," RFC 2526, March 1999

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.

• Do not change Target nodes once testing has begun. 

AddrInterop 

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

• DUT = TAR-Node1 for all tests. 

• TAR-Node1 = Independent Implementation Device B 

• TAR-Node2 = Independent Implemenation Device C 

• TAR-Node3 = Independent Implemenation Device D 

Addressing Architecture Test Check List

Reference Test Specification 

Id Test Number Device Type
RFC 4007, 

4291 AddrInterop AddrInterop.1.1: IPv6 Scoped Address (A)(B)(C)(D) Host/Router 

RFC 3484 AddrInterop AddrInterop.1.2: Default Source Address Selection (A)(C) Host/Router 

RFC 3484 AddrInterop AddrInterop.1.2: Default Source Address Selection (B) Host 

RFC 3484 AddrInterop AddrInterop.1.3: Default Destination Address Selection (A) Host/Router 

RFC 3484 AddrInterop AddrInterop.1.3: Default Destination Address Selection (B) Host 

RFC 3879 AddrInterop Test AddrInterop.1.5: Deprecating Site Local Addresses 

(A)(B) Host/Router 

RFC 3879 AddrInterop Test AddrInterop.2.2: Routing Deprecated Site Local 

Addresses Router 

NOTE: The following tests are considered a O for the Address Architecture Requirements as per the USGv6-V1 

Profile. 

Reference Test Specification Id Test Number Device Type

RFC 4193 AddrInterop AddrInterop.1.4: IPv6 Scoped Address (A)(B)(C)(D) Host/Router 

RFC 4193 AddrInterop Test AddrInterop.2.2: Routing Deprecated Site Local Addresses Router 

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

tests applicable to the USGv6 Profile.
#### REXAM INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-1247.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 4, 2001.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Rexam Industries Corporation moves to voluntarily dismiss its appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROSHAN SAH,

 Appellant,

v.

STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-13-00129-CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County, Texas 

(TC# 1272135D)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief 

until December 12, 2013. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. WM. Reagan Wynn, the Appellant’s Attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before December 12, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2013.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Menachem PRI-HAR, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 00-1573.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 1, 2001.

Milton Mollen, Graugard Mollen & Miller; Barry M. Fallick, Rochman Platzer Fallick & Sternheim, LLP, of counsel, New York, NY, for appellant.

Deirdre A. McEvoy, Assistant United States Attorney; Christine H. Chung, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel; Mary Jo White, United States Attorney, on the brief, United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for appellee.

Present NEWMAN and CABRANES, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Alvin W. Thompson of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Menachem Pri-Har appeals from a judgment of the District Court denying his motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. Pri-Har argues that the District Court abused its discretion in denying his motion because: (1) he proffered “newly discovered” evidence that would have led to his acquittal; and (2) the Government suppressed this evidence, in violation of its obligations under *Brady v. Maryland,*373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and knowingly presented false testimony and arguments relating to this evidence.

After reviewing the record, we affirm the District Court’s judgment substantially for the reasons provided in its February 9, 2000 opinion. See *Pri-Har v. United States,*83 F.Supp.2d 393 (S.D.N.Y.2000). As the District Court found, much of Pri-Har’s “newly discovered” evidence was not exculpatory within the meaning of Rule 33 or *Brady. See id.*at 400-04. Moreover, Pri-Har failed to show that he was unable to discover before or during trial much of this evidence with the exercise of due diligence. Finally, we agree with the District Court that, in light of the substantial evidence of Pri-Har’s guilt, none of the evidence was sufficient to impugn the validity of the jury’s verdict. *See id.*at 404-05.

Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, and its judgment is hereby AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
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 CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. (CRM) on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jerome S. Flum, Chief
Executive 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, 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.  By:
/s/
Jerome S.
  FlumJerome S.
  FlumChief
  Executive OfficerMay 15, 2007 18
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 73337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29040]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-14-041]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: December 15, 2014 at 11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-512 and 731-TA-1248 (Final) (Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from China). The Commission is currently 
scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the 
Commission on December 26, 2014.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission:

    Issued: December 5, 2014.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-29040 Filed 12-8-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
\tlJ 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

CHRISTOPHER WORTHY, 

Petitioner, 

FILED 

FEB 26 2010 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

v. Civil Action No. 10 0315 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner's application to proceed informa 

pauperis and pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Petitioner, who currently is detained at the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail in Bowling 

Green, Virginia, appears to challenge his conviction in the Superior Court of the District of 

Columbia. See Compl. at 2. Petitioner has submitted his petition using a preprinted form, and in 

the section devoted to the grounds on which he claims that he is being held unlawfully, he states 

the following: 

Id. at 5. 

Section to the Constitution, Article 1, Bill of Rights, Section 106, 

Right for Speedy Trial, witnesses, etc." 

A challenge to the Superior Court conviction must be brought by motion in that court 

under D.C. Code § 23-110. In relevant part D.C. Code § 23-110 provides: 

[An] application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner 

who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this 

section shall not be entertained by ... any Federal. .. court if it 

appears ... that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless it 

also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to 

1 
test the legality of his detention. 

D.C. Code § 23-11 O(g). "Section 23-110 has been found to be adequate and effective because it 

is coextensive with habeas corpus." Saleh v. Braxton, 788 F. Supp. 1232 (D.D.C. 1992). It is 

settled that "a District of Columbia prisoner has no recourse to a federal judicial forum unless 

the local remedy is 'inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. '" Byrd v. 

Henderson, 119 F.3d 34,36-37 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (internal footnote omitted); Garris v. Lindsay, 

794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993 (1986). 

Furthermore, habeas actions are subject to jurisdictional and statutory limitations. See 

Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court o/Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973). The proper respondent 

in a habeas corpus action is the petitioner's warden. Rums/eld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,434-35 

(2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Chatman-Bey v. 

Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804,810 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). Thus, "a district court may not entertain a 

habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its 

territorial jurisdiction." Stokes v. United States Parole Comm 'n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 

2004). Insofar as petitioner is challenging his current custody on an alternative basis, the petition 

should be filed in the district where he is detained. 

The Court will dismiss the petition without prejUdice. An Order consistent with this 

Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this date. 

DATE: ;;'/'!l.oi6 

2
#### Mariah Avery *v.*J. M. Elder, et al.

Decedent’s Estates — Widow—Suit of Creditor.

Where there is no administration of a decedent’s estate and a suit is brought,against the widow who has taken the property no recovery can be had where no averment is made that the personal property of decedent received by the widow was of greater value than she had a right by law to have set apart to her, before the payment of debts.

APPEAL PROM CLINTON CIRCUIT COURT.

March 1, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

Although it is alleged that W. C. Avery died intestate, it is not alleged that no administration had been granted on his estate, nor *624is appellant sued as executrix de son tort, but she is sued as the widow, and it is alleged that after the death of her husband, she took into her possession all of his personal estate, worth over the amount of the judgments of appellees. It is also alleged that decedent was a soldier of the U. S. government in the late war and that appellant received the amount due him for a horse, for his back pay and the bounty due him for his services in the army to a greater amount than would be sufficient to satisfy said judgments. But it is not alleged in the petition that the personal estate of decedent, which was received by the widow, was of greater value than she had a right by law to have set apart to her before the payment of debts. As to the back pay and bounty received by her for the services of her husband in the late war, this court has repeatedly held that in such cases where the government has paid the money to the widow, or to the children of a soldier, it becomes the money of the widow, or children, and is not subject to the debts of the deceased soldier.

*I. T. Montgomery, for appellant.*

*J. A. Brents, for appellees.*

The allegations of the petition, therefore, are not sufficient to authorize a recovery against appellant in any aspect of the case presented. Wherefore the judgment is *reversed*and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.
OpenAGS: an Analysis Program for Prompt 

Gamma Activation Spectra

Christopher Stallard - Poolesville High School

Mentor: Heather Chen-Mayer
How PGAA Works

● The sample in question is irradiated using a 

neutron beam

● Sample nuclei become excited

● Nuclei emit gamma rays upon de-excitation

● The energy of these gamma rays depends 

on the specific element that produced them

● Several advantages over traditional INAA

● Detects a few specific elements (B, Cd, Sm, 

Gd) at 10-100 ppb, many others at 1-10 ppm
Project Goals

Current Workflow for PGAA Data Analysis:
Project Goals

Planned Workflow:
Finding Elemental Mass from Data

● Plot counts per second as a function of energy

● Look for peaks at predetermined locations

● Find area under peak (A)

● Sensitivities (S) have already been determined by irradiating a known amount 

of the target element (S = A/mass)

● Mass = A/S

● So given a peak with area 20 cps and sensitivity 2 cps/mg, we can determine 

that there are 10 mg of the associated element in the sample
Finding the True Area of Peaks

● Overlapping Peaks

● Background Noise

● Peaks not in predictions library

● Solution: Nonlinear Least-Squares Fitting
Gaussian Peaks and why they Matter

● Like Normal distributions, but area underneath can 

be any value

● Caused by detector response to gamma rays at a 

single frequency (the center)

● Overall equation to model multiple peaks
My Approach to the Problem

● Find local maxima 

● Guess initial parameters for Gaussians

● Guess the equation of a line that models background data

● Use a curve fitter (scipy.curve_fit) to optimize my guesses

● Match peaks to isotopes

● Divide by sensitivity, and output the mass
Live Demo
Comparison With Existing Solution
Future Work

● Present more data to the user during the analysis process

● Fit Doppler-Broadened Gaussians like the B-11 peak

● Add support for more complex functions to model the Detector Response

● Add a feature which allows the user to calculate sensitivities from spectra 

created by irradiating known masses
Questions?
#### F. R. Hancock *v.*John F. Rice.

Pleading — Answer—Reply.

Where an answer presents a valid counterclaim, a reply is not good which avers that plaintiff has not sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to whether the averments in the answer are true.

APPEAL PROM MUHLENBURG CIRCUIT COURT.

September 21, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

It is alleged in the answer of the appellant, in substance, that the several sums of money charged to the appellee in the account made part of the answer were either drawn out by him or transferred by his direction to the credit of Morgan, and that after crediting the appellee with all the money d'eposited with appellant, and charging him with what he had drawn out or caused to be transferred to the credit of Morgan, there was due to the appellant the sum of $9.97, for which he prayed judgment.

The substance of the reply is that he has not sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to whether the statement filed with defendant’s answer, and showing the amount of cash deposited with and drawn from the defendant, Hancock, by the plaintiff, is correct. Therefore, that is, because he had not sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief, he denies that said statement is correct. He specifically denies each and every item and statement of defendant’s answer, denies that defendant ever repaid to him the amount of the check sued for, or any part thereof, denies that he is indebted to the defendant in the sum of $9.97, or any part thereof.

*827
      *A. J. James, for appellant.*

Whether the amounts charged as having been paid to him were in fact paid, and whether those charged as transferred to Mongan’s credit had been directed by him to be so transferred, were matters necessarily within the personal knowledge of the appellee, and he could not make a sufficient answer to such allegations by denying knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief of their truth. *Wing, et al., v. Dugan,*8 Bush 583. That he specifically denies each and every item and statement of defendant’s answer is obviously insufficient; nor is the denial of indebtedness good. *Francis v. Francis,*18 B. Mon. 57; *Whitaker v. Sandifer, 1*Duvall 261; *Corbin, et al., v. Commonwealth, 2*Met. 380.

The jury having found a verdict for the appellee for the sum of $365, the appellant moved for a new trial, and his motion was overruled. He then moved for judgment non obstante veredicto, which motion was likewise overruled. In this the court erred. We have already decided that the reply was insufficient. The answer presented a valid counterclaim, which, not being controverted, judgment should have been rendered for the appellant on the pleadings for -the sum of $9.97.

“Where, upon the statements in the pleadings, one party is entitled by law to judgment in his favor, he shall be so entered by the court, though a verdict has been found against such party.” Sec. 416, Civil Code.

For the error indicated the judgment is *reversed*and the cause is remanded with directions to sustain the motion and render judgment on the pleadings for the appellant for $9.97.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,516,701
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       4,833,353
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    645,338
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         645,338
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           645,338
<LOANS>                                     69,194,075
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,037,387
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              85,565,887
<DEPOSITS>                                  78,092,825
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            522,015
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       591,544
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,359,503
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              85,565,887
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,127,986
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               39,804
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               182,890
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,350,680
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,640,524
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,640,524
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,710,156
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  479,838
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,740,041
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                173,011
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     173,011
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   108,845
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.96
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,521,369
<LOANS-PAST>                                   254,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               858,271
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  458,703
<RECOVERIES>                                   157,981
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,037,387
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,037,387
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         66,588
        

</TABLE>
CRITERION NETWORK LABS, CRITERION NETWORKS

INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

has been assessed and accredited in accordance with the standard

ISO/IEC 17025:2017

''General Requirements for the Competence of Testing &

Calibration Laboratories''

for its facilities at

UNIT#3 GROUND FLOOR, EXPLORER BUILDING, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, INDIA

in the field of

TESTING

Certificate Number: TC-5490

Issue Date: 23/05/2022 Valid Until: 22/05/2024

This certificate remains valid forthe Scope of Accreditation as specified in the annexure subject to continued

satisfactory compliance to the above standard & the relevant requirements of NABL.

(To see the scope of accreditation of this laboratory, youmay also visit NABLwebsite www.nabl-india.org)

Name of Legal Entity : Criterion Networks India Private Limited

Signed for and on behalf of NABL

N. Venkateswaran

Chief Executive Officer