alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

# AGENCY:

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

# ACTION:

Notice of renewal of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”), 5 U.S.C. App., and after consultation with the General Services Administration, the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has determined that renewal of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion (“the Committee”) is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the FDIC by law. The Committee has been a successful undertaking by the FDIC and has provided valuable feedback to the agency on important initiatives focused on expanding access to banking services for underserved populations. The Committee will continue to provide advice and recommendations on initiatives to expand access to banking services for underserved populations. The Committee will continue to review various issues that may include, but not be limited to, basic retail financial services such as low-cost, sustainable transaction accounts, savings accounts, small dollar lending, prepaid cards, money orders, remittances, and other services to promote asset accumulation and financial stability. The structure and responsibilities of the Committee are unchanged from when it was originally established in November 2006. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043.

Dated: December 18, 2014.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2014-30150 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
From: stephen.campbell@nstillc.com <stephen.campbell@nstillc.com>

Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 4:25 PM

To: privacyframework <privacyframework@nist.gov>

Cc: privacyeng <privacyeng@nist.gov>

Subject: Privacy: Positive Versus Negative Rights

Dear NIST,

I have enjoyed examining the draft version of the NIST Privacy Framework and the related 

document NISTIR 8062. As a security and privacy consultant (and adviser to the Center for 

internet Security) the biggest thing that jumps out at me is the lack of the concepts of 

positive rights and associated obligations in the supporting models.

Privacy is a composite right that consists of both negative and positive sub-rights. 

See https://www.learnliberty.org/videos/positive-rights-vs-negative-rights/. The new 

framework talks mostly of privacy in terms of the risk of an adverse effect on an individual 

created either by the classic compromise of the confidentiality, integrity or availability of 

personal data, or by a "problematic data action". All good stuff. This pertains to the negative 

sub-rights associated with privacy: freedom from embarrassment, stigma, economic loss, 

physical harm etc. precipitated by a security incident or by a problematic data action 

associated with the individual's personal data.

But to model privacy we also need to account for an individual's positive rights. Depending 

upon the regulatory environment these include the right to be informed through a privacy 

notice of the purpose of the data collection and the uses of the data, the right to opt in or 

opt out, the right to request the data, have it erased, have it rectified etc. These positive 

rights impose obligations on the data controller. These obligations also create risks for the 

controller if the controller fails to carry out the obligations. They have to do with the 

establishment and maintenance of trust as captured in the design goal of predictability.

One way to include the positive rights and associated obligations into a conceptual model is 

to depict privacy at a high level as consisting of both negative and positive rights. The 

negative rights can then be modeled using the privacy risk model outlined in the current 

documents, such risks consisting only of direct risks to individuals and indirect risks to 

controllers created by direct risks to individuals. The positive rights can be modeled in terms 

of obligations. These obligations can be modeled either in terms of the improved trust that 

successful fulfillment of the obligations can bring about, or in terms of the indirect risks to 

the controller caused by a failure to carry out obligations tied to the individual's positive 

rights.

I hope that makes sense. I realize my comment is past the deadline but would appreciate 

your consideration. Email or call if anything is unclear. I am in the Boston area.

Kind regards

Stephen

774 777 6784
Using A Multiple-Temperature 

MCMC Model to More Efficiently 

Find the 95% Credible Interval

David Witten

Montgomery Blair High School
Background: Distributions

● Normal

● Poisson

● Beta
Background

Normal(0,1)

95% interval of a Normal is [-1.96, 1.96] Middle 95% of 100 generated 

points

95% CI with 100, 1000, 10000,

and 100000 data points

Goal: More efficiently estimate the 95% CI
Background: MCMC

MCMC = Markov Chain Monte Carlo

● Markov Chain = Sequence of events that only depend on the 

previous event

● Monte Carlo = Generated Random points

○ Reference to the Monte Carlo Casino
Background: MCMC (cont.)

Metropolis-Hastings Algorithm

16.6%

50%

50%

16.6%

33.3%

 1⁄3 1⁄3 
Background: Credible Interval

95% Confidence Interval: 

95% of the 955 confidence intervals I create will contain 

the true value

95% Credible Interval: 

95% probability that the true value falls within a region, given 

some data

In simple cases, they’re the same
Significance

● Credible intervals give an interval estimate of the 

parameter

○ Range of probable values

● Need 1,000,000 points to be accurate to 0.01

● This project reduced required samples by 50%
Temperature

Concept from Simulated Annealing

● Used to the max/min of some function

Temperature: 1/T power of function

T = 1

T = 2

T = 10
Benefit of Multiple Temperatures

T = 1

T = 3

At T = 1, 

● Higher variation in the tails ✘

● Lower variation in the center ✔

At T = 3, 

● Lower variation in the tails ✔

● Higher variation in the center ✘

We want to combine them to keep the better 

parts of both
Finding the Absolute Ratio

What we have: What we want:

Ratio of the 

curves on the 

left

Area of

Area of 
Algorithm

T = 1

T = 3

Estimate area under tails Estimate under center

Weight: 

● All points are weighted

Note: At T = 1, this is 1

Algorithm: 
Algorithm Further Explained

T = 3 tail estimate T = 1 tail estimate T = 3 center estimate T = 1 center 

 estimate

Estimate area under tails Estimate under center

≈ +

% 

T=3 % T=1 % T=3 % T=1
Cumulative Density Function
Distribution Required to equal

 T = 1: 1000

Reduction

T(3) 498 50.2%

Beta(2,5) 420 58%

Normal(0,1) 500 50%

Results

 Old New

 Old

 New

Using 50% partition
Conclusion

● Simple, yet effective algorithm

○ Easy to implement

○ O(n)

● Around a 50% improvement
● Paul Kienzle

● NIST colleagues

● SHIP Program, NCNR, CHRNS

Acknowledgments
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20397

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALI MAHMOOD AWAD IRSAN, also known as Ali Irsan,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-248-1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ali Mahmood Awad Irsan has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Irsan has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20397 Document: 00513556241 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
No. 15-20397

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-20397 Document: 00513556241 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
#### John R. Lambert *v.*George Smith.

Conversion of Personal Property — Pleading—Evidence.

In a suit charging that the defendant wrongfully took possession of plaintiffs horse and refused to deliver the same to the plaintiff, although demand was made, the defendant, under a general denial, cannot hy the evidence make defense of confession and avoidance.

APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

May 6, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

It was alleged in the petition that the defendant “wrongfully, without right, took possession” of the plaintiff’s horse, and had “failed and refused to deliver the same to the plaintiff, although due demand had been made therefor.” These allegations being undenied, the conversion of the horse stood confessed on the pleadings. These allegations being confessed, the denial that the defendant wrongfully and without right converted the horse to his own use, presented no defense whatever to the action.

*701
      *Clay & Coleman, for appellant. H. F. Turner, for appellee.*

But if the answer be conceded to contain a traverse of all the material allegations in the petition, the result would be the same. The evidence shows without contradiction that the defendant took possession of the horse without the consent of the plaintiff, and that while in the former’s possession the horse was killed.

The defendant attempted to show by the evidence that the horse was trespassing upon his premises, and that he took possession of him merely for the purpose of restraining him from committing other depredations until the plaintiff could be informed of the fact and come and take him away. In other words, he .sought to prove that his possession was lawful, and then insisted that being lawfully in possession he was only liable in the event the horse was killed in consequence of his negligence.

This defense could not be made under an answer which contained only denials of the allegations in the petition. The answer, if good at all, was a simple denial of the facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action; but the defense attempted to be made out by the evidence was of confession and avoidance.

To admit such a defense under such an answer would be totally to disregard the rules of pleading and practice, and thereby to deprive the plaintiff of the advantage of being informed by the answer of the facts upon which the defendant intended to rely. The plaintiff had a right to look to the answer; and when he found no attempt to make any other defense than a mere denial of the facts alleged, he had a right to assume that he would only be required to prove those facts, and would naturally be surprised by, and totally unprepared to meet the evidence offered, not to disprove, büt to avoid the facts he had alleged.

It results, therefore, that, even conceding the answer was sufficient to bar the action, the court did not err in refusing to give instructions based on evidence offered in avoidance of the plaintiff’s cause of action.

Judgment *affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of MATERIALISE NV (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wilfried Vancraen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: April 28, 2017



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Wilfried Vancraen  
|    |  | Wilfried Vancraen      
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 1 5

- 0 0 0 7 2

- CR
CHARLES TREVAUGHN TIGG BLAKEY , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 1 85 th District Court of Harris County (Tr. Ct. No. 1410435 )
The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on June 27 , 201 4 . After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the opinion of this Court that it has no jurisdiction over the appeal. It is therefore CONSI DERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
Judgment rendered August 18 , 2015

. Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justice s Bland and Huddle

.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             Edgar Filing.Net, Inc.

                     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with the Annual  Report of Edgar  Filing.Net,  Inc. on Form
10K-SB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on March 29, 2004 (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, each hereby 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  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 Edgar
     Filing.Net, Inc.

Date:  March 29 , 2004


/s/     Danny L. Pixler
------------------------
Chief Executive Officer


Date:  March 29, 2004


/s/     Danny L. Pixler
------------------------
Chief Financial Officer


Note: The certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as
amended,  or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference,  except as otherwise  expressly
stated in such filing.
#### Severnoe Securities Corporation, Plaintiff, *v.*Phœnix Assurance Company, Limited, Defendant.

Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

December 19, 1924.

Depositions — examination by defendant before trial of managing director of plaintiff’s assignor, Russian corporation — defense that assignment is not valid — defense will depend on testimony of managing director of plaintiff’s assignor — defendant is entitled to examination.

The defendant in this action brought by the assignee of a Russian corporation is entitled to an examination before trial of the managing director of plaintiff’s assignor, since it appears that the defense is that the assignment is invalid and that the defendant will be compelled, in order to sustain the defense, to rely upon the testimony of the manager of plaintiff’s assignor, for the facts upon which defendant must stand are peculiarly within the knowledge of said manager.

Motion by defendant to examine before trial the managing director of plaintiff's assignor, a Russian corporation.

*Bonynge & Barker,*for the plaintiff.

*Barry, WainwrigM, Thacher & Symmers,*for the defendant.

Proskauer, J.:

Plaintiff sues as assignee of a Russian corporation. The assignment bears a corporate acknowledgment. The defendant pleads that the charter of the Russian company renders invalid an assignment without a valuable consideration and that no consideration passed; that under the organic law the managing director who executed the assignment was without authority to execute the same unless authorized by resolution and that no such resolution was passed; and that the corporation was unauthorized to execute the assignment outside of Russia and that the paper was in fact signed here. Defendant seeks to examine Andre, the managing director, to support these defenses. Plaintiff argues that since it has the burden of proving a valid assignment, no examination can be granted. This case presents a highly special situation. Apparently the plaintiff's *prima facie*proof will be the acknowledged assignment. To meet this the defendant is practically compelled to elicit its testimony from the plaintiff's manager, the facts being peculiarly within his knowledge. This application, therefore, comes *189within the exception to the general rule recognized in *Schweinburg*v. *Altman*(131 App. Div. 795), *Marine Trust Co.*v. *Nuway Devices, Inc.*(204 id. 752) and discussed in Carmody’s New York Practice (pp. 360, 361) .

The motion to examine is granted to the extent indicated.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRUCE L. WILLIAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-0700-CG-B

)

DOTCH’S BARBER SHOP & SALON, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge

(Doc. 4) and plaintiff’s objection thereto (Doc. 5). The magistrate judge recommended that this

action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s order and to

prosecute this action. Upon a de novo review of those portions of the report and

recommendation to which objection is made, the court agrees with the findings of the magistrate

judge and finds that the case is due to be dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff’s handwritten complaint alleges that he was personally injured by, and

dissatisfied with, a hair cut he received from defendant. The magistrate judge found that the

complaint lacked a plain statement of plaintiff’s claims sufficient to show that he is entitled to

relief and to give defendant notice of the claims against it and ordered plaintiff to file an

amended complaint. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff failed to amend his complaint. Plaintiff’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis was also found to be deficient (Doc. 3), and plaintiff has failed to pay

the $250 filing fee or file a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff’s handwritten objection states several varied claims that are apparently unrelated

to the claims asserted in plaintiff’s complaint and do not address the deficiencies of plaintiff’s

Case 1:05-cv-00700-CG-B Document 6 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 2
2

complaint or his failure to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff alleges that he and his family have been

victims of hate crimes and witchcraft and have had their lives threatened. Plaintiff asserts that

he is serious about this matter and that he seeks “the electric chair for those who have brought

this hate crime against (upon) me.” The court finds plaintiff’s rambling allegations to be

insufficient to state a new claim against defendant or to remedy the deficiencies of plaintiff’s

case. 

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the

issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the report and recommendation to

which objection is made, the report and 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

action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to obey the court’s order and to

prosecute this action.

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2006. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00700-CG-B Document 6 Filed 05/09/06 Page 2 of 2
Order entered August 13 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00084
- CR No. 05
- 15
- 00085
- CR
TANYA DIANE WILLIAMS , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F13
- 61793
- V , F13
- 72175
- V 

### O RDER Appellant was convicted of two offenses of sexual assault of child. Appellant’s briefs identify the complaining witness by his full name. Accordingly, we STRIKE the appellant’s briefs filed on August 6, 2015. We ORDER appellant to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, amended briefs that identify the complaining witness by initials only.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to counsel for all parties.
/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1895 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1895

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
     Representatives, Allowances and Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
     Representatives, Allowances and Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR HOUSE OF 
              REPRESENTATIVES, ALLOWANCES AND EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for House of Representatives, 
Allowances and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$253,493,016.
                                 <all>
```
ACCEPTED 01-15-00660-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/4/2015 8:30:44 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK