alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Relative High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2008–2012

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

A high school completion rate is the percentage of persons ages 

25 and over with a high school diploma or more. The percent of the 

U.S. average is computed by dividing the county high school 

completion rate by the national average and multiplying by 100. 

The map uses critical breaks such as the national average to 

organize the data into groups of common values.

Map Created: March 2014

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2008–2012

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

64.7% - 74.9%

75.0% - 84.9%

85.0% - 99.9%

100.0% - 108.6%

Percent of the U.S. Average 

(Critical Breaks Classification) 

U.S. average = 85.7%

Appalachian average = 84.1%
County Economic Status in Appalachia, Fiscal Year 2021

(Effective October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021)

The Appalachian Regional Commission uses an index-based county 

economic classification system to identify and monitor the economic 

status of Appalachian counties. See the reverse side for a description 

of each economic level.

Map Created: June 2020

Data Sources:

Unemployment data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS, 2016–2018

Income data: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, LAPI, 2018

Poverty data: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014–2018

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

Distressed (78)

At-Risk (104)

Transitional (223)

Competitive (13)

County Economic Levels

Attainment (2)
County Economic Status Classification System, FY 2021

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) uses an index-based county economic classification system to 

identify and monitor the economic status of Appalachian counties. The system involves the creation of a 

national index of county economic status through a comparison of each county’s averages for three economic 

indicators—three-year average unemployment rate, per capita market income, and poverty rate—with national 

averages. The resulting values are summed and averaged to create a composite index value for each county. 

Each county in the nation is then ranked, based on its composite index value, with higher values indicating 

higher levels of distress.

County Economic Levels

Each Appalachian county is classified into one of five economic status designations, based on its position in the 

national ranking. 

Distressed

Distressed counties are the most economically depressed counties. They rank in the worst 10 percent of the 

nation’s counties.

At-Risk

At-Risk counties are those at risk of becoming economically distressed. They rank between the worst 10 percent 

and 25 percent of the nation’s counties.

Transitional

Transitional counties are those transitioning between strong and weak economies. They make up the largest 

economic status designation. Transitional counties rank between the worst 25 percent and the best 25 percent of 

the nation’s counties.

Competitive

Competitive counties are those that are able to compete in the national economy but are not in the highest 10 

percent of the nation’s counties. Counties ranking between the best 10 percent and 25 percent of the nation’s 

counties are classified competitive.

Attainment

Attainment counties are the economically strongest counties. Counties ranking in the best 10 percent of the 

nation’s counties are classified attainment.

Attainment 

Counties

Best 10% of 

U.S. Counties

Competitive 

Counties

Best 10+ to 25% of 

U.S. Counties

At-Risk 

Counties

Worst 10+ to 25% 

of U.S. Counties

Distressed 

Counties

Worst 10%

 of U.S. 

Counties

ARC County Economic Status Designation by National Index Value Rank

Ranked Index Values 

of U.S. Counties

Transitional Counties

Higher Index Values Lower Index Values
----

----

**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

  

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofMedical Connections Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Brian R. Neill, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1) the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

August 14, 2012

 

 

----
#### Ex parte JOHNSON.

No. A-11985.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 2, 1953.

*368Ernest Johnson, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

■BRETT, Judge.

This is an original petition for habeas corpus brought by Ernest Johnson as petitioner.- In said petition he complains that he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty by the Honorable Jerome J. Waters, Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma. He alleges the cause of said restraint is a certain judgment and sentence rendered against him on February 20, 1953 in the district court of Pontotoc county, Oklahoma, on a charge of conjoint robbery to which he entered a plea of guilty, and upon which he was sentenced to 10 years in the penitentiary. ■ He admits he was represented by counsel, but further complains that he believed he would receive a minimum sentence of 5 years, but the trial judge sentenced him to 10 years in the penitentiary.

It appears from said unverified petition that the jurisdiction of the .trial court was complete. The trial court had jurisdiction of the person of petitioner, jurisdiction of the subject matter, and authority ■ under the law to pronounce the judgment and sentence imposed, Title 21, § 800, O.S.1951, fixing the minimum at 5 years and the maximum penalty at 50 years. It appears the petitioner was represented by counsel,, and that his principal complaint was that he received more time than he expected. In Ex parte Davenport, Okl.Cr., 241 P.2d 429, 430, not yet re-potted in State reports, it was held:

> "In habeas corpus proceedings, inquiry is limited to whether court had jurisdiction of subject matter, jurisdiction of the person, and authority under the law to pronounce judgment and sentence rendered.”

Moreover, it was held therein that an understanding with others about the amount of sentence to be imposed on a plea of guilty is not binding on the trial court, and in the absence of clear and convincing proof to the contrary we must presume that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was one that he believed to be just and in keeping with.the crime alleged and the facts, in relation thereto before him. For all the foregoing reasons the writ of habeas corpus is accordingly denied.

POWELL, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.
# C_2008171EN.01002601.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/26

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court of Appeal, Thessaloniki (Greece) lodged on 28 April 2008 — Maria Kastrinaki v A.KH.E.P.A. University Hospital, Thessaloniki

(Case C-186/08)

(2008/C 171/39)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Administrative Court of Appeal, Thessaloniki

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Kastrinaki

Applicant:

Defendant: A.KH.E.P.A. University Hospital, Thessaloniki

Defendant:

Question referred

Is it open to the competent authorities, for the purposes of the provisions of Directive 89/48/ΕEC, as transposed into Greek law by Joint Ministerial Decision No Α4/4112/247/1992, interpreted in the light of Article 39(1), the first paragraph of Article 40, Articles 43, 47(1), 49 and 55 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to prevent a national of a Member State, the holder of a diploma falling within the scope of Directive 89/48/EEC, who is employed by a legal person governed by public law, under a contract of employment of unlimited duration governed by private law, and who has been granted a licence by the competent authorities of the original Member State to use a professional title and by the competent authorities of the host Member State to practice the profession, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 89/48/ΕEC, as transposed into Greek law by Joint Ministerial Decision No Α4/4112/247/1992, from progressing in career and salary by way of a permanent appointment in a fixed post as a civil servant in the university-education level grade and salary scale, on the ground that recognition of the academic equivalence of the university educational qualification from the original Member State is not possible, since part of the studies were completed in the host Member State under a franchising agreement with a private educational organisation which is not recognised in that Member State as an educational establishment?

---
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK-Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         February 20, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, NIDDK, Democracy II, Suite 7000A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Xiaodu Guo, Ph.D., M.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7023, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-4719,                         *guox@extra.niddk.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 22, 2023.

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-28680 Filed 12-27-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1518]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       IN HONOR OF THE SIX SIKH AMERICANS SLAIN ON AUGUST 5, 2012

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JERRY McNERNEY

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 13, 2012

  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to ask my colleagues to join 
me in honoring the memory of the six Sikh Americans that were shot and 
killed in a senseless act of violence on August 5, 2012.
  Bhai Seeta Singh, Bhai Parkash Singh, Bhai Ranjit Singh, Satwant 
Singh Kaleka, Subegh Singh, and Parmjit Kaur Toor were slain without 
regard to human dignity or the sanctity of life. The people of my 
district and Americans across the Nation stand in solidarity with the 
Sikh community. Violence against any group is unacceptable, and I offer 
my prayers and condolences to the families of the victims in Wisconsin 
and to Sikhs everywhere.
  Hate, particularly hate speech, is all too common in today's world. 
The Sikh community's unified and peaceful response to this hateful 
attack demonstrates the resilient spirit of the Sikh people. They have 
shown the world their love of peace, and it is my hope that we can all 
learn from the Sikh community in the wake of this tragedy.
  In this great country, there is no room for the prejudice, 
intolerance and stereotypes that perpetuate hate acts and hate 
language. I stand beside the Sikh people as they continue to have the 
strength and dignity to be proud of their long heritage. To show such 
grace when faced with such a senseless act of violence is a true 
testament of their honorable culture.
  I had the unique privilege to stand vigil with the Sikh people from 
my district. To join together in the face of such animosity was an 
honor. I commend the Sikh community in my district and around the 
country for their courageous response.
  It is for these reasons that I ask my colleagues to join me in 
honoring the memory of the six Sikh Americans who were killed on August 
5, 2012.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-85327, 333-89489, 333-54924, 333-56068,
333-63422, 333-69812 333-97227 and 333-109431) and Form S-8 (No. 033-70100,
333-1438, 333-31417, 333-45799, 333-71641, 333-94619, 333-46002, 333-61166,
333-69822 and 333-89590 and 333-109432) of Asyst Technologies, Inc. of our
report dated June 4, 2004 relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California

June 9, 2004
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 119 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D827]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
  No committee meetings were held.
```
# C_2009069EN.01003901.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/39

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 — Artisjus v Commission

(Case T-411/08 R)

(Applications for interim measures - Commission decision ordering the cessation of a concerted practice in connection with the collective management of copyright - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2009/C 69/90)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Artisjus Magyar Szerzői Jogvédő Iroda Egyesület (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Z. Hegymegi-Barakonyi and P. Vörös, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Articles 3 and 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
**Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 September 2008 – Ellinikos Niognomon v Commission**

**(Case T-312/08 R)**

Application for interim measures – Directive 94/57/EC – Common rules and standards applicable to ship inspection and survey organisations – Withdrawal of recognition granted to such an organisation – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima
facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Discretion of the judge dealing with
the application for interim relief (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
(see paras 19-20)*

2.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Interest of the applicant
in obtaining suspension – Negative administrative decision – No interest (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-26)*

3.                     *Application for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Direction to the Commission to extend or renew
the authorisation of a body enabling it to inspect vessels and issue maritime safety certificates in the name of the Member
State – Measure incompatible with the allocation of powers between institutions – Rejection (Arts 233 EC and 243 EC; Council
Directive 94/57) (see paras 28-29)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the letter of the Commission withdrawing the recognition granted to the applicant by Commission Decision 2005/623/EC of 3 August 2005 on the extension of the limited recognition of the Hellenic Register of Shipping (Ellinikos Niognomon AE) (OJ 2005 L 219, p. 43). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the application for interim measures; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Reserves the costs. |
SERVED : JANUAR Y 5 , 201 2 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N:y'''K^tUAyin^^ !

OFFIC EO FHEARING S -' • '' ' OPtR/^rjri'j: . WASHINGTON , D C 

## ^'' ^ m~ L, , IN TH EMATTE RO F KELL Y MCDOWEL L FA A DOCKE T NO . [T O B EASSIGNED ]

(Civi l Penalty Action ) FDM S NO . FAA-20 1 1-128 7 "^'S h

NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor e designate da s Cas e No . 2011CE700044 ) ha s bee n assigne dt o Administrativ e Law Judg e Richar dC . Goodwin . Al l future pleading s an dothe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do n th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an dth e othe r persons o n th e attache dServic e List .

I Ronnie A . Y

j

- Chie f Administrativ i Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFDM S No . FAA-2011-128 7 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Kell y McDowell , Responden t 71 6 Hal l Val e Driv e Ft . Worth , TX 7610 8 Mar y Elle n Loftus , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Central Region , ACE- 7 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Roo m506 , DO T Buildin g 9 1 Locus t Kansa s City , M O 64106-264 1 TEL : 816-329-376 4 FAX : 816-329-377 1 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . - Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Legal Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

I Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo r servic e i nperso no r

b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federal Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wright Building—Suit e 2WI000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .

- 2 -
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2024

EXEQUIEL S. GRANDEA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TOGO D. WEST, JR., Secretary, Department of

the Army, Agency,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-95-

3371-L)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 19, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Exequiel S. Grandea, Appellant Pro Se. Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion for reconsideration of the district court's previous order

dismissing Appellant's employment discrimination action. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Grandea v. West, No. CA-95-3371-L (D. Md. June 2,

1997). 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
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                       LANDRY'S SEAFOOD RESTAURANTS, INC.

         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE--DILUTED

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Year Ended December 31,
                                           -----------------------------------
                                              1999        1998        1997
                                           ----------- ----------  -----------
<S>                                        <C>         <C>         <C>
Net Income (Loss)......................... $15,375,733 $ (329,578) $27,430,044
                                           =========== ==========  ===========
Weighted Average Common Shares
 Outstanding..............................  26,675,000 29,400,000   25,518,000
Common Stock Equivalents--Stock Options...     350,000    500,000    1,082,000
                                           ----------- ----------  -----------
Weighted Average Common and Common
 Equivalent Shares Outstanding--
 (Diluted)................................  27,025,000 29,900,000   26,600,000
                                           =========== ==========  ===========
Net Income (Loss) Per Share--(Diluted).... $      0.57 $    (0.01) $      1.03
                                           =========== ==========  ===========
</TABLE>