alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jonathan Fiscus P. Jonathon Phillips Haiying Guan Yooyoung Lee Amy N. Yates Andrew Delgado Daniel Zhou Multimodal Information Group, Information Access Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/mig Historically, the U.S. Government deployed and operated a variety of collection systems that provided imagery with assured integrity. In recent years, even relatively unskilled users can manipulate and distort the message of visual media. While many manipulations are benign, performed for fun or for artistic value, others are for adversarial purposes, such as propaganda or misinformation campaigns. DARPA’s Media Forensics ( MediFor ) program brings together world-class researchers to attempt to level the digital imagery playing field, which currently favors the manipulator, by developing technologies for the automated assessment of the integrity of an image or video and integrating these in an end-to-end media forensics platform. (Adapted from: http:// www.darpa.mil / program/media-forensics) 

# Should I Believe or Not? Adventures in Media Forensics Information Access Division National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA Project

Metrics Manipulated Images ABSTRACT

CONTACT Motivations Digital media manipulation software has progressed to the point where a cursory knowledge of the tools is sufficient to drastically change the information in the image, sometimes to the detriment of honest reporting. Current forensic tools used to detect or trace these manipulations lack robustness, scalability, and do not address all aspects of media authentication. MediFor aims to advance manipulation detection technologies through evaluation-centric research.



## Approach

• Define a common lexicon of manipulation operations and descriptive metadata

• Design datasets to account for diverse manipulation types and sequences of manipulations

• Construct evaluation tasks to test both generic and specific manipulations by category, e.g. manipulation, removal, splice

• Design the evaluation infrastructure to account for the various manipulations Results Analysis Question

• What general factors did the correctly identified images have that the incorrectly identified images did not?

• Which factors enabled the algorithm to make this decision? ROC/AUC - Detection



## Impact

• Detect manipulations automatically and assist in forensic examination

• Provide detailed information about how these manipulations were performed

• Determine to what extent images are reliable Probe Image

Base Image Base image Probe Image

Donor image Probe Image

Base Image Manipulation Removal

Nimble Mask Metric (NMM) Splice

∉
.

System output

GT

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 False Positive RateTrue Positive Rate

RunID: TaskID : SetID : PostID 1 : manipulation : * : * ROC

FPRTPR

Probe reference mask System output mask Next Steps

• Evaluate algorithms on the dataset o Detection o Region of manipulation (mask) o Provenance

• Extend to video Sample images from the Nimble Challenge 2016 Dataset.
Exhibit 32.1

BULOVA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES

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 Bulova Technologies Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I John D. Stanton, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ John D. StantonJohn D. StantonPrincipal Executive Officer
May 27, 2010
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-19-00394-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF H.P. III, A CHILD 

 

On Appeal from the 100th District Court 

Childress County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 10,964, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding 

 

February 20, 2020 

 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, Father, appeals from the trial court’s order adjudicating parentage and 

terminating his parental rights to his child, H.P. III.1 The petition to terminate was filed by 

appellee, Mother, and not by a governmental entity. Now pending before this Court is 

Father’s motion requesting that we appoint counsel to represent him on appeal. We 

remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

1 To protect the privacy of the parties involved, we will refer to the appellant as “Father,” to the 

appellee as “Mother,” and to the child by his initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West Supp. 

2019); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b).
2

In a suit requesting termination of the parent-child relationship that is not filed by a 

governmental entity, the trial court shall appoint an attorney ad litem unless the court finds 

that the interests of the child will be represented adequately by a party to the suit whose 

interests are not in conflict with the child’s interests. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.021(a1) (West 2019).

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court to 

determine whether to appoint appellate counsel to represent Father pursuant to Section 

107.021(a-1) of the Family Code. See In re A.G.D., No. 07-15-00201-CV, 2015 Tex. App. 

LEXIS 6072, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 16, 2015, order) (per curiam). Upon 

remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means it finds necessary to determine the 

following:

(1) whether Father still desires to prosecute the appeal;

(2) whether Father is indigent; and

(3) whether counsel should be appointed to represent Father on appeal.

Should the trial court appoint appellate counsel, the name, address, e-mail 

address, telephone number, and state bar number of appointed counsel shall be provided 

to the Clerk of this Court in an order of the court. The trial court shall also issue findings 

of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing subjects. A supplemental clerk’s 

record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and any orders issued shall 

be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before March 2, 2020.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam
**Exhibit 15.2**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (FormS-8 No. 333-129271) of ABB Ltd pertaining to the ABB Employee ShareAcquisition Plan - US Share Acquisition Sub-Plan of our reports dated March 3,2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of ABBLtd included in its Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December31, 2005.

 

 
| /S/ Ernst & Young AG |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |
| Zurich, Switzerland      |
| April 18, 2006           |

 

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1991 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1991

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National 
            Institute of Mental Health 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 Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National 
            Institute of Mental Health 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 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH 
              NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute of 
Mental Health for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $1,812,796,000.
                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6885** 

DAVID W. WILLIAMS , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS/BOTETOURT FACILITY; P.J. RICE; DR. LEE; MAJOR RICHARDS , Defendants

– Appellees
.

Appe al from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. ( 7:10

- cv - 00129

- JLK

- MFU )

Submitted : February 22, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE , Circ uit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. David W. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David W. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing h is action without prejudice for failing to comply with the conditional filing order and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(2) (2006). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 2 8 U.S.C. § 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order Williams seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss th e appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Williams’s motion for injunctive relief. 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 decisiona l
process. DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1944 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1944

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
  Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Salaries 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 Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
  Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Salaries 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 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 
              BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, SALARIES AND EXPENSES FOR 
              FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Labor, 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 
may not exceed $550,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie B. Avilez, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 824]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J), rendered August 14, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]) in connection with the home invasion of his cousin’s home. We reject defendant’s contention that the testimony of the accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated and thus that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. Both the accomplice and the victim testified that defendant was inside the home when the accomplice entered and that the accomplice pointed what appeared to be a handgun at defendant while defendant told the victim to give the accomplice money. The accomplice’s testimony that defendant had planned the crime was sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of the victim, who observed defendant talking with the accomplice outside the home prior to the crime *(see People v Reome,*15 NY3d 188, 191-192 [2010]), and by statements defendant made to his girlfriend in a recorded telephone conversation while he was incarcerated *(see People v Mohamed,*94 AD3d 1462, 1463 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 999 [2012], *reconsideration denied*20 NY3d 934 [2012]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Scudder, EJ, Smith, Fahey, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
11710.

#### WARD *v.*THE STATE.

It is not necessary that there shall be the same strictness as to the admission of evidence when a ease is by agreement tried by the judge without a jury as when it is tried by a jury, since the judge is supposed to know the rules of evidence and to be able to apply them in the final determination of the case.

The verdict was authorized by evidence, and the exceptions do not point out any error that would require a new trial.

Decided December 16, 1920.

Accusation of abandonment of child; from city court of Bainbridge— Judge Spooner. June 25, 1920.

*McMillan & Erwin, W.*F. *Ouster,*for plaintiff in error.

*62Bloodworth, *J.*

This was a case of abandonment of a child. By agreement it was submitted to the judge, who passed upon the ease without the intervention of a jury. In such a case it is not necessary that the same strictness as to the admission of evidence be adhered to as when the case is submitted to a jury, as the judge, upon a final determination of the case, is supposed to be able to “ sift the wheat from the chaff, ” and from the legal evidence alone determine the issues. There was some evidence to support the finding of the judge that the city court of Bainbridge had jurisdiction of the case; and, when all the facts are considered, the exceptions to the rulings of the court do not point out any error that would require the grant of a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Luke,*J., *concur.*
----

|   | 1. | The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of the periods covered by the Annual Report. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: June 1, 2010 |   |                          |
|--------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|               | By:    | /s/Timothy Carnahan           |
|               |   | Timothy Carnahan              |
|               |   | Chief Executive Officer & |
|               |   | Principal Financial Officer   |

----
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00414-CR

Gary Leamon Taylor a/k/a Gary L. 

Taylor

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR13519)

August 2, 2018

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



                            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 Annual Report of AdStar, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Leslie Bernhard, 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:

        (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.

        A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.


/s/ Leslie Bernhard
----------------------------
Leslie Bernhard
Chief Executive Officer

March 30, 2004
ORDER

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 Recommendation 

to which objection is made, the 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 Defendants’ Motions for Summary 

Judgment be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s action be DISMISSED 

against all Defendants, with prejudice.

DONE this 23rd day of March, 2016.

s/WILLIAM H . STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROOSEVELT THOMAS, JR.,

AIS #115280,

Plaintiff,

:

:

:

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-248-WS-M

:

CORIZON, INC., et. al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

Case 1:15-cv-00248-WS-M Document 60 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

VICKIE TAYLOR )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No.: 04-758-BH-B

)

THE CITY OF DEMOPOLIS, et al. )

)

Defendants )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Bill (Doc. 76) of Costs and Plaintiff’s Motion

(Doc. 78) to Stay the application of the Bill of Costs pending their appeal to the Eleventh Circuit

Court of Appeals. 

In reviewing Defendants’ Bill of Costs to be taxed to Plaintiff in this action, the Court

hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff is to pay to Defendants the amount of Four Thousand Forty Two

Dollars and Forty Seven Cents ($4,042.47). Though Defendants seek more than this amount, the

Court finds that only the materials necessarily relied upon by the Court in determining the issues

presented in the parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment will be taxed to Plaintiff. Therefore, the

Court excluded the following costs from final tabulation:

1) Deposition Cost of Rick Manley ($35.65)

2) Mileage Cost for Deposition of Art Elsner ($87.30)

3) Expert Witness Fee of Art Elsner ($1400.00)

Case 2:04-cv-00758-BH-B Document 80 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 2
As to Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 78) to Stay, the Court hereby DENIES the motion. Pursuant

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d), if Plaintiff wishes to obtain a Stay of the proceedings to enforce this judgment

they must file a supersedeas bond subject to approval by the Court.

So ORDERED, this 13th day December, 2005.

s/ W. B. Hand

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00758-BH-B Document 80 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 13.2

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/A 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, Johan Albrecht, 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: June 30, 2017



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Johan Albrecht     
|    |  | Johan Albrecht         
|    |  | Alfinco BVBA           
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer