alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11513.

#### Hays *v.*The State.

Decided July 29, 1920.

Indictment for misdemeanor; from "Whitfield superior court — Judge Tarver. April 17, 1920.

*R. H. House,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. M. Lang, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. “ When all the evidence introduced on the trial of a criminal case strongly and decidedly tended to show that the offense was committed in the county where the trial was had, and there was no evidence warranting even a hare conjecture that it was committed elsewhere, it will be held that the venue was sufficiently proved.” *Womble v. State,*107 *Ga.*666, 667 (3), 669 (33 S. E. 630), and authorities cited. See also *Davis*v. *State,*7 *Ga. App.*332 (66 S. E. 960). Under this ruling the venue in the instant case was sufficiently shown.

2. There was some evidence which authorized the jury to And that the defendant had sold a portion of the mortgaged property before the payment of the mortgage debt, without the consent of, and with the intent to defraud, the mortgagee, and that loss was thereby sustained by the latter; and the trial judge having approved the defendant’s conviction, and no error of law appearing, this court is without authority to reverse the judgment below.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
Nurturing a Culture of Innovation and 

Collaboration

VCAT

October 20, 2020

Mojdeh Bahar, J.D., M.A., CLP, RTTP

Associate Director

Innovation and Industry Services
Innovation and Industry Services

Through formation of PPPs, 

we build communities 

around

 Technological 

innovations

 Manufacturing

 Performance excellence

2
• Seeking internal synergies

• Expanding the reach

• Seeking external partners

• Telling our story 

Overarching Goals 
IIS Notables FY20-21

• Collaborative projects among IIS components

• Stakeholder, partner identification, finding areas with common 

stakeholders

• Communication Plan with external partners

• Identification of collaboration opportunities with NIST Laboratories

4
Manufacturing CARES Act Grants

5

$50 million in 

grants to 51 

centers in 90 days

$12.4 million competitively awarded to five 

Manufacturing USA institutes, sponsoring 13 

high-impact pandemic response projects

Regenerative 

Manufacturing

Manchester NH Pittsburgh PA

Advanced 

Robotics

Additive 

Manufacturing

Youngstown OH

Lightweight 

Materials 

Manufacturing

Newark DE Detroit MI

Biopharmaceutical 

Manufacturing
Advanced Manufacturing Notables FY20-21

• Agency-Wide Collaboration and Coordination Through the 

NSTC Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing

• New DOC/NIST Manufacturing USA Institute(s) 

• Alliance pathway for recognizing additional centers

• Institute Renewal Process

• Potential GMP facility for biopharma production scale-up

• Advanced Manufacturing National Awareness Campaign 

6
MEP Notables FY20-21

• Industry Roundtables: 11 roundtables, 50 manufacturers, 27 states

• MEP & Baldrige: FloridaMakes Industry 4.0 Integration Within a 

Baldrige Framework

7
Baldrige Performance Excellence Program 

Notables FY20-21

• Pledge to America's Workers Presidential Award (PAWPA)

• NIST Leader in Baldrige Fellows Program 

8
Assessment of TPO/TT Functions

• NOAC Study

• VCAT input

• Study of Boulder’s Entrepreneurial Ecosystem and TT’s role

• Meetings with TPO Staff, Lab Directors, VCAT TT, NIST Management

• Input of the NIST Innovation Council

• Prior recommendations of TTPC

9
Recommendations for NIST-wide 

1. Eliminate operational silos and communication roadblocks 

2. Create excitement about tech transfer within the NIST labs

3. Think and act strategically about IP 

4. Develop technology discovery and marketing strategies 

5. Increase awareness of NIST technologies available for use

6. Reward and incentivize commercialization activities 

7. Leverage best practices to ensure NIST is world-class in tech transfer

8. Establish the role of Technology Liaison

9. Define NIST’s roles in the commercialization and patenting process

10. Communicate the importance of tech transfer broadly 10
TPO Notables FY20-21

• Alignment with NIST laboratories

• “One TPO”

• Redefining roles for some staff members

• Innovation Ambassador Program

• Training

• Communication Pieces on metrics and successes

• Appropriate legal instruments

• Umbrella Agreements

• Creating a BUZZ around TT activities 

11
Q & A

Thank you for your kind attention!

Mojdeh Bahar

Mojdeh.bahar@nist.gov
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75226-75227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29517]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration (``SBA'') under Section 309 of the Small 
Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and Section 107.1900 of 
the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations, SBA by this 
notice declares null and void the license to function as a small 
business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company

[[Page 75227]]

License No. 06/06-0325 issued to Jefferson Capital Partners I, L.P.

    United States Small Business Administration.
    Dated: December 10, 2014.
Javier E. Saade,
Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2014-29517 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### Board of Trustees of Columbia *v.*T. H. Curd, et al.

Officers of Towns — Marshal.

Before a town marshal can be compelled to pay over public money some party entitled to receive it must make demand therefor.

Town Trustees.

Town trustees have no right to the possession of the publio funds and are not proper parties to demand them from the marshal.

APPEAL FROM ADAIR CIRCUIT COURT.

March 31, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

There is no allegation of a demand of the marshal by any party *461entitled to the money alleged to be in his hands. Before a collection officer can be compelled to pay such moneys, some party must be designated to whom the payment is to be made, unless the charter in this case regulates the manner of payment. If to be paid to the town treasurer, he must make the demand, and this fact must be alleged. The trustees have no more right to the possession of the funds than the marshal who collects them; and a payment by him to á trustee would not release him from responsibility. See *Owens v. Ballard County Court,*8 Bush 611. Judgment *affirmed.*

*Winfrey & Winfrey, for appellant.*

*Alexander, Dickinson, for appellees.*
| William C. Owens as Chief Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group, Inc., the General Partner of Owens Mortgage Investment Fund, a California Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”), and Bryan H. Draper, as Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that: |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  (1)     | the Registrant’s Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the applicable 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 |
|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Registrant. |
|-------------|
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_____________________ _____ 09
- 17
- 00379
- CR

__________________________

________________________________________________________ _________

On Appeal from the 221st District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 17
- 01
- 00333
- CR

_________________________________________________________________ ORDER
Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the instant appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel certified that counsel provided copies of the motion and brief to Appellant, advised Appellant of Appellant’s right to examine the app ellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied Appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Caryn Lee Stucky, Appellant

V. The State of Texas, AppelleeAppellant requested access to the appellate record with this Court. We

hereby direct the clerk of the trial court to provide access to a paper copy of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record to appellant, and to provide written verification to this Court of the date and manner in which the appellate record was prov ided, on
or before Monday, March 26, 2018

. See id. , 436 S.W.3d at 321

- 22

. ORDER ENTERED March 8, 2018

.

PER CURIAM

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Newton COCKERILL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6382.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 29, 2001.

Newton Coekerill, pro se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, SC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Newton Coekerill seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the court’s judgment denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Cockerill’s motion to stay the briefing schedule, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Cockerill,*Nos. CR-98-524-DWS; CA-00-2914-3 (D.S.C. Feb. 9 & 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.*
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

             CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
(i) Nos. 333-53207, 333-53205, 33-88646, 33-93550, 33-93552, 33-93554, and
33-93556 of Nabisco Holdings Corp., on Form S-8, (ii) No. 333-92565 of Nabisco,
Inc. on Form S-8, and (iii) No. 333-66025 of Nabisco, Inc. on Form S-3, of our
report dated February 2, 2000, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Nabisco Holdings Corp. and Nabisco, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey

March 21, 2000
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7628
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KITTRELL BERNARD DECATOR; CRAIG LAMONT SCOTT, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-281-K, CR-95-202-K) Submitted: January 30, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1998 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kittrell Bernard Decator, Craig Lamont Scott, Appellants Pro Se. James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Kittrell B. Decator and Craig L. Scott appeal from the district court's order denying their motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6), to dismiss their convictions and sentencesfor bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) (West Supp. 1997). Appellants contend that the Government does not have a private cause of action under the bank robbery statute. Because their claims are frivolous, we affirm the district court's dismissal of their motion. 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.

AFFIRMED
USGv6 Test Selection Tables 

Addressing Architecture Requirements 

F5-Interoperability: Addr Arch Requirements R1v1.2 

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

Test Specification Id: 

• [AddrInterop] Address Architecture 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 three or more independent implementations of IPv6.

• Target nodes must not change 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 Implementation Device C 

• TAR-Node3 = Independent Implementation 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 6724 AddrInterop AddrInterop.1.2: Default Source Address Selection (A)(C) Host/Router 

RFC 6724 AddrInterop AddrInterop.1.2: Default Source Address Selection (B)(D)(E) Host

RFC 6724 AddrInterop AddrInterop.1.3: Default Destination Address Selection (A) Host/Router 

RFC 6724 AddrInterop AddrInterop.1.3: Default Destination Address Selection (B) Host

RFC 4193 AddrInterop AddrInterop.1.4: Unique Local IPv6 Address (A)(B) Host/Router

RFC 3879 AddrInterop AddrInterop.1.5: Deprecating Site Local Addresses (A)(B) Host/Router 

RFC 4193 AddrInterop AddrInterop.2.1: Routing Unique Local Addresses Router

RFC 3879 AddrInterop AddrInterop.2.2: Routing Deprecated Site Local Addresses Router 

RFC 6164, 7608 AddrInterop AddrInterop.2.3: IPv6 Prefixes greater than 64 bits (A) Router

References: 

• [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 Architecture," RFC 4291, February 2006 

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

Architecture," RFC 4007, March 2005 

• [RFC 3879] C. Huitema, B. Carpenter, "Deprecating Site Local Addresses." RFC 3879, September 2004 
• [RFC 6724] D. Thaler, R.Draves, A.Matsumoto, T.Chown, “Default Address Selection for Internet 

Protocol version 6 (IPv6)”, RFC 6724, September, 2012. 

• [RFC 6164] M. Kohno, B.Nitzan, R.Bush, Y.Matsuzaki, L.Colitti, T.Narten. “Using 127-bit Ipv6 Prefixes 

on Inter-Router Links”, RFC 6164, April 2011.

• [RFC 7608] M. Boucadair, A. Petrescu, F. Baker, “IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding”, 

RFC 7608, July 2015.

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

tests applicable to the USGv6 Profile.
#### N. Harris, et al., *v.*Thomas H. Prather, et al.

Mortgage or Sale of Personal Property.

The owner of personal property exempt from coercive seizure for debt may nevertheless sell it or mortgage it and such sale or mortgage may be enforced.

APPEAL PROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT.

November 21, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The owner of personal property exempt from' coercive seizure and sale for debt, may nevertheless sell it, or pledge it by express contract. When the pledge is evidenced by a mortgage regularly executed and delivered, the chancellor must at the suit of the mortgagees enforce the contract.

The statute does not, as in the case of the homestead exemption, make the right of the mortgagee depend upon the assent of the mortgagor’s wife to be expressed by the fact that she joins in the mortgage. This question was incidentally settled in the case of *Moxley v.*Ragan, 10 Bush 156, when it was said, “It is well settled that a debtor may sell his personal property, exempt from execution either *800in payment of debt, or for any other valuable consideration, so as to vest in the purchaser the absolute title, or even mortgage it, which is in effect a sale, to secure the payment of a debt.”

*P. B. Thompson, for appellants. Kyle & Poston, for appellees.*

Judgment *reversed*and the cause remanded with instructions to enforce the mortgage by subjecting the mortgaged property to the satisfaction of appellant’s claim.
#### Joseph S. Higdon *v.*Martha Beck, etc.

Executors and Administrators — Death of Claimant.

Upon the death, of one having a claim against a personal representative, the claim of the decedent passes to the personal representative of the deceased and should be asserted by the representative of the deceased.

Descent and Distribution — Suit by Heirs.

Heirs cannot bring suit immediately upon the death of their ancestor for a claim due him, since such right can be exercised by them only in case there is no administration of the estate.

APPEAL PROM EDMONSON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 29, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

It appears from the original petition that appellee, Martha I. Beck is the daughter of Garrett and Parmelia .Potter, and that Martha Browne is their granddaughter. From the amended petition it appears that Garrett Potter, the father and grandfather, was alive at the time the original petition was filed. Such being the case, he was entitled, as surviving husband, to the entire personal estate of his deceased wife, Parmelia, and as heir at law of the whole estate of his deceased son, Isaiah Potter. Hence when this action was commenced, neither Martha I. Beck nor Martha *127Browne had any claim against Higdon, the administrator of Par-melia and Isaiah Potter. Nor did the subsequent death of their ancestor, Garrett Potter, invest them with any such right.

*R.*Rodes, *for appellant.*

*J. P.*Bates, *for appellee.*

His claim against Higdon passed to his personal representative, and should be asserted by such representative.

If there had been no administration upon his estate, the fault rests with his creditors and heirs at law. Such being the -case, only the heirs can not immediately, upon his death, sue in their own name to recover debts due to him while alive.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions to dismiss appellee’s original and amended petitions.

The judgment for damages rendered upon-the dismissal of the appeal granted by the circuit court can not now be disturbed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                               TELVUE CORPORATION

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TelVue Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jesse Lerman, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 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 Company.


Date: May 16, 2011                      /s/ Jesse Lerman
                                        ----------------
                                        Jesse Lerman
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE § 1350**

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies thatto his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period endedSeptember 30, 2004 of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of Allstate Life InsuranceCompany of New York.

 
| Date: November 10, 2004 |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
|                    |
|                    | /s/ Casey J. Sylla |   |
|                    | Casey J. Sylla |
|                    | Chairman of the Board and  President |
|                    |
|                    | /s/ Steven E. Shebik |   |
|                    | Steven E. Shebik |
|                    | Vice  President and Chief Financial  Officer |
|                         |  |  |  |

 

E-5

----
---



Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



|I, R. Douglas Orr, certify that:
|--------------------------------
|                                
|1.                              
|                                
|2.                              
|                                
|3.                              
|                                
|4.                              
|                                
|.                               
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|5.                              
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                

Date:  November 7, 2007



/s/ R. Douglas OrrR. Douglas Orr
Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE J. PRUITT, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. CA 05-0675-C

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security, :

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the memorandum opinion and order entered on this

date, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff benefits be

reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), see

Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991),

for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. The remand

pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a prevailing party for

purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, Shalala v.

Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 112 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993), and 

Case 1:05-cv-00675-C Document 15 Filed 06/29/06 Page 1 of 2
2

terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. 

DONE this the 29th day of June, 2006.

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00675-C Document 15 Filed 06/29/06 Page 2 of 2