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

Extreme Manufacturing Wor

NIST, Gaithersburg MD

10-11 January 2011

Future Manufacturing En

Breakout Session Overview
MicroManufacturing Processes MesoMulti-function Facilities and Organizations

PSI

OEM

OEM

OEM

PSI

OEM

OEM

OEM

OEM

OEM

S

S

S

SS

S

S S

MacroGlobally Networked Organizations

Defining the Topic

Scope of the Manufacturing En
Why is This Importa

“Because that’s where the money is ...

--- Willie Sutto

Leverage on:

• Cost

• Delivery Time• Quality• Agility• Environmental Impacts• Energy Efficiency• Global 

Competitiveness

•

. . .
The Challenge 

Valu

• Reduce V• Efficiency• Process 

Value Creation

• Need Variation to Develop New 

Technologies and Approaches

• Creativity, Imagination• Think “out of the box” – provide 

Customers with solutions before they even know they have a problem

Need Both Creation and Delivery of Value to assure C

INNOVATION

CREATIVE THINKING

DISCIPLINE

STRUCTURE
Enterprise Visions and Ena

Many Common Denominato

• DoD Advanced Manufacturing Enterprise (AME)

– Connect the enterprise– Build the digital thread– Create an agile factory floor– Ensure a robust infrastructure

• Smart Manufacturing*

– Data for manufacturing intelligence – sense, collect, manag– Data analysis and M&S accessible to small, medium and la– Community-source IT platform with plug and play capability– Meaningful use in agile supply chains, enterprise optimizati

– Skilled workforce

• Other ideas from issue papers and presentations

– Personal Manufacturing* and DARPA Adaptive Vehicle Ma– Systems Approach to Future Manufacturing Enterprise*– DoD Systems 2020 and NDIA SE Producibility M&S*– Digital Manufacturing – National Innovation Network*

• Enablers – Service Oriented Mfg, Clean Energy Mfg*, Flexib

(* = Issue paper)
Pushing Toward the Ext

Distinguishing the Ends from the 

• What are the axes on which we seek to adva• What goals and objectives will move us, and • Where are the gaps (technology, infrastructu• What are the roles for gov’t, industry, acade

Affordabillity

Speed 

Delive

Quality

Agility

Greeness

Energy 

Efficiency
Future Manufacturing En

Some thoughts for the breakout s

• Our scope is enormous

– Suggest we focus on macro and meso level id

advantage of anticipated advances at micro le

• Some concepts are general, others are d

– Even general concepts need to be developed – Suggest we have a couple of use cases in min

• Enterprise visions are lofty

– Suggest we dive down to meaningful enablers 

• Infrastructure and Standards are importan

– Suggest we drive toward identifying needs an
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000840459
<NAME> AEI REAL ESTATE FUND XVIII LTD PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         736,720
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,582
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               786,302
<PP&E>                                      16,196,656
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,075,615)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,907,343
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          296,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,610,643
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,907,343
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,257,153
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  461,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                773,229
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            773,229
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   773,229
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    35.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    35.92
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00454-CG-B

JERRY L. FERRELL, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

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

raised, and there having been no objections filed, 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 be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

prosecute and to obey the court's order.

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of April, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00454-CG-B Document 24 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50459 Conference Calendar

DONALD RAY MCCRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MICHAEL J. MCCORMICK, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-96-CV-137

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Donald Ray McCray, # 620694, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (now (e)(2)(B)(i)). He contends that Judge McCormick is not entitled to absolute immunity. We have reviewed the record and the district court'sNo. 96-50459 -2- opinion and find no reversible error. See McCray v. McCormick , No. A-96-CA-137-SS (W.D. Tex. Jun. 10, 1996). We further hold that McCray’s appeal is frivolous and dismiss it pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We remind McCray that in McCray v. Lower , No. 96-20516 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 1996), he was barred indefinitely by this court from filing any pro se , in forma pauperis civil appeal in this court, or any pro se , in forma pauperis initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court’s jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge of the forum court, and that the clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts in this Circuit are directed to return to McCray, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar. We consider this appeal only because it was filed before this bar was imposed. To avoid additional sanctions, McCray should review any pending appeals and withdraw any frivolous appeals immediately.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0610-CG-N

)

ZLM ACQUISITIONS, L.L.C., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This cause is before the court on the Suggestion of Bankruptcy filed by the 

plaintiff on October 1, 2014 (Doc. 57), in which plaintiff represents that a Chapter 7 

Involuntary Petition pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 303(b)(2) with respect to 

defendant David A. Stewart was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for 

the Southern District of Alabama.

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, the filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a 

stay of an action. Therefore, this action is hereby STAYED as to defendant David 

A. Stewart.

The parties shall notify the court within thirty (30) days of the resolution of 

the bankruptcy proceedings, or of a lift of the stay, at which time this action will be 

re-instated against David A. Stewart.

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2014.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00610-CG-N Document 58 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 1
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00395-CV

Susan COSTNER,

Appellant

v.

State of 

STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2000EM502104

Honorable Andy Mireles, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 13, 2014

APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court signed an Order Dismissing Petition to Establish the Parent-Child 

Relationship on September 14, 2000. On March 3, 2014, appellant filed a “Motion for Leave to 

File Late Notice of Appeal” in this court in appellate cause number 04-14-00146-CV. Because it 

did not appear as if appellant had filed a notice of appeal, this court ordered appellant to file a 

written response establishing that she had timely filed her notice of appeal. Appellant did not 

respond, and this court denied her motion as moot and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction 

on April 30, 2014. 
04-14-00395-CV

On May 1, 2014, appellant filed a notice of appeal in this appellate cause number. 

However, because it appeared this court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from a final judgment 

that was signed almost fourteen years ago, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this 

appeal should not be dismissed. Appellant has not responded; therefore, this appeal is dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

- 2 -
#### THE STATE ex rel. WRAY v. HAWES et al., Appellants.

In Banc,

November 3, 1903.

Police: patrolman : aitointment by implication. Where a patrolman was appointed for a term of four years and held over for two years longer, he was not thereby, within the meaning of the St. Louis police act, reappointed by implication for a term of four years from the expiration of his first four-year term, but may be dropped at any time.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. *S. P. Spencer,*Judge.

Reversed.

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

*A. A. Paxson*and *B. F. Clark*for respondent.

GANTT, J.

Relator was appointed a patrolman on April 1, 1889, for a term of four years, which he fully served. He held over until October 17,1895, when he was dropped. He claims that he was reappointed, by implication, for a further term of four years from the expiration of his first term on April 1, 1893, and he asks a writ of mandamus for salary from October 17, 1895, until April 1, 1897. The trial court gave him judgment and the defendants appealed.

There is no merit in his ease. The judgment of the circuit court is erroneous, and it is reversed andi the writ quashed.

All concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                                 Netegrity, Inc.

                            Certification Pursuant To
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant To
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Netegrity, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Regina O. Sommer, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, that this Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: April 28, 2003                  By: /s/ Regina O. Sommer
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Regina O. Sommer
                                          Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer and
                                          Principal Accounting Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Netegrity, Inc. and will be retained by Netegrity, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAULOS MURPHY, :

Petitioner, :

v. : CIVIL ACTION 05-00353-WS-B

GRANTT CULLIVER, :

Respondent. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of

this file deemed relevant to the issue raised, and there

having been no objections filed, 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 be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for

failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's order.

DONE this 4th day of August, 2006.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00353-WS-B Document 5 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 15,932.

#### Watt *v.*The Board of Commissioners of Boone County.

Bill oe *Exceptions.*— Time *Allowed to Prepare, etc., Fixed by the Court.-*— ■ *Failure to Present for Approvalin Required Time.*— Effect *on Appeal.*— Where a bill of exceptions has not been presented to the judge for his approval within the time fixed by the court, the bill will not be properly in the record, and no question will be presented thereby for the decision of this court.

From Hendricks Circuit Court.

*F. M. McCray,*for appellant.

*O. P. Mahan,*for appellee.

Olds, J.

The question discussed by counsel for appellant in his brief, and sought to be presented in this cause, as stated by counsel, relates to the rulings of the court in *133•excluding certain evidence offered by the appellant on tbe trial of tbe cause in tbe circuit court, and which was objected to by counsel for the appellee, and the objection sustained, and the evidence excluded by the court. Counsel for the appellant makes a general statement of the question involved and says it is properly presented by the •record, but no reference is made to the record, showing the offering and excluding of the evidence and the ruling of the court and reserving of an exception thereto. If any such question is presented in this case, it must appear by the general bill of exceptions filed in the cause, and it is contended on the part of counsel for the appellee that the bill of exceptions is not a part of the record, for the •reason that it was not filed or presented to the judge for his approval and signature within the time fixed by the •court; that the court, on the 23d day of October, 1889, fixed the time of filing the bill of exceptions, giving ninety days’ time, from that date, within which to file the -same, and that the bill of exceptions was not presented to the judge for his approval until the 22d day of January, 1890, ninety-one days having expired, excluding the day on which the order was made, before the bill was presented to the judge for his approval; and these facts appear from the record.

Filed November 18, 1892;

petition for a rehearing overruled December 15, 1892.

The bill of exceptions not having been presented to the judge for approval within the time fixed by the court, the bill of exceptions is not properly in the record, and no question is presented for our decision. The statute requires that time must be allowed by the court for the presentation of a bill of exceptions to the judge, and it must be presented within the time allowed. Section 629, R. S. 1881; Elliott’s Appellate Procedure, sections 802 and 803, and authorities there collected.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 32.2 —    Section 1350 Certification**     I, Andrew A. Campbell, certify that:      (1)     the    Form 10-K    of Pactiv Corporation for the period ended December 31,    2007, (the “Report”) fully complies with the    requirements of § 13(a) or § 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and      (2)     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all    material respects, the financial condition and results of    operations of Pactiv Corporation for the period then ended. /s/  Andrew    A. Campbell    Andrew A. Campbell    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer     February 29, 2008     Date      This certification accompanies this report pursuant to    Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall    not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of    2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of    Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as    amended. A signed original of this written statement required by    Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be    retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and    Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### E. L. Cantrill *v.*J. C. Poor, et al.

Appeal Bond — Clerical Errors in Appeal Bond.

Where an appeal bond is styled “Appeal from a judgment of T. R. Barnett, Judge, Green quarterly court,” but it is recited in the body of the bond that it is taken from the judgment of the Green county court, a mere omission by the draftsman, it is held that a recovery may be had on such bond, notwithstanding such defect.

APPEAL FROM GREEN CIRCUIT COURT.

February 27, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

It is evident that the appeal bond executed by appellee was not only intended, but was a bond executed in the circuit court, or rather before the clerk of that court, to supersede the judgment rendered in the quarterly court. . The bond is styled “Appeal from a judgment of T. R. Barnett, Judge, Green quarterly court;” but in the body of the bond it is recited that the appeal is from the judgment of the Green county court, a mere omission by the clerk or draftsman, at best. Still, leaving the writing upon its face to show plainly the interest of the parties, and the court from which the appeal was taken, the demurrer admits the statements in the petition to be true. The bond is made' part of it; and we think there is no doubt as to its sufficiency and the liability of the surety in the event the party appealing failed in the action.

If the bond was not even filed with the petition it would be no ground for demurrer; but the record shows that it w|as made part of the petition, and is now in the record. In *Kendall v. Russell,*5 Dana 501, an authority referred to by counsel for the appellee, it is said: “The parties should be bound for what they intended to be *390bound, and no more.” This, we think, is good law, and it being manifest that these parties intended to execute a bond to obtain an appeal from the quarterly court, and did, in fact, execute it, the judgment is *reversed*and cause remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer to the petition, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*W. H. Chelf, for appellant.*

*J. C. Rush, for appellees.*
#### MAGNETITE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VINYLEX CORPORATION, Defendant-Cross Appellant.

Nos. 00-1273, 00-1298.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: May 11, 2001.

Rehearing and Rehearing en Banc June 29, 2001.

Before MICHEL and SCHALL, Circuit Judges, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge.

*917
      *JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: *AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<PAGE>

                       EXHIBIT 23.2 -- PACTIV CORPORATION
EXPLANATION CONCERNING ABSENCE OF CURRENT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

     Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, provides that if
part of a registration statement at the time it becomes effective contains an
untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a material fact required to be
stated therein necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any
person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration statement (unless it
is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth
or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an accountant who has
consented to be named as having certified any part of the registration statement
or as having prepared any report for use in connection with the registration
statement.

     On March 20, 2002, Pactiv Corporation ("Pactiv") dismissed Arthur Andersen
LLP ("AALLP") as its independent auditors. On August 31, 2002, AALLP voluntarily
relinquished all of its permits and is no longer licensed to practice as a
public accountant. As a result, after reasonable efforts, Pactiv has been unable
to obtain AALLP's written consent to the incorporation by reference from
Pactiv's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, of
AALLP's audit report with respect to Pactiv's financial statements as of
December 31, 2001 and for the three years then ended, which by inclusion in such
Form 10-K would be incorporated by reference into previously filed Registration
Statements of Pactiv under the Securities Act.

     Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act of 1933
permits Pactiv to file this Annual Report on Form 10-K without a written consent
from AALLP. However, as a result, AALLP will not have any liability under
Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact
contained in the financial statements audited by AALLP or any omissions of a
material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, individuals, their
successors or assigns may be unable to assert a claim against AALLP under
Section 11(a) of the Securities Act with respect to such financials. Pactiv
believes, however, that other persons who may be liable under Section 11(a) of
the Securities Act, including the company's officers and directors, may still
rely on AALLP's audit reports as being made by an expert under the due diligence
defense provision of Section 11(b) of the Securities Act.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHERYLE W. HALL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0031-CB-N

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner )

of Social Security, )

)

Respondent. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and there having been no

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Fees is GRANTED, and that defendant is

ordered to pay to plaintiff’s counsel the sum of $3,811.96.

DONE and ORDERED this the 4thday of March, 2010.

/s/Charles R. Butler, Jr. 

CHARLES R. BUTLER, JR.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00031-CB-N Document 30 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 1