alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Map Created: October 2009.

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 Census.

Relative College Completion Rates in Appalachia, 1980

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

A college completion rate is the percentage of adults, 25 years 

and over, completing 4 years of college or more. The percent of 

the U.S. average is computed by dividing the county college 

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. 

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

17.3% - 49.9% 

50.0% - 74.9% 

75.0% - 99.9% 

100.0% - 223.8% 

U.S. average = 16.2%

Appalachian average = 11.1%

Percent of the U.S. Average 

(Critical Breaks Classification)
Order entered November 14, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01206-CR

JOSEPH NEWMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-30564-L

ORDER

This appeal is REINSTATED.

By order entered October 17, 2018, the Court deferred ruling on appellant’s October 12, 

2018 pro se motions to withdraw his guilty plea and for “free process” to proceed as an indigent 

on appeal. Because it was unclear whether appellant had been designated as an indigent allowed 

to proceed on appeal without costs and whether the trial court had appointed counsel to represent 

appellant on appeal, the Court abated this appeal to allow the trial court to make these 

determinations and to allow the trial court to prepare a certification of the right to appeal.

The Court has received documents showing that on November 5, 2018, the trial court 

determined appellant was indigent and appointed April Smith as counsel on appeal. Among the 
–2–

documents received is a certification of the right to appeal certifying that this is a plea-bargain 

case and appellant has no right to appeal.

Accordingly, the Court VACATES its October 17, 2018 order.

Because appellant is represented by counsel and is not entitled to hybrid representation, 

the Court DENIES appellant’s October 12, 2018 pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 

Because the trial court has determined appellant is indigent, the Court DENIES AS MOOT

appellant’s October 12, 2018 motion for free process. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41668 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN RECIO-VALLEJO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-03-CR-612-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Recio-Vallejo (“Recio”) appeals his guilty plea conviction and 46-month sentence for illegal reentry into the United States following an aggravated felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, Recio argues that the district court erred in assigning a criminal history point for his sentence for reckless driving. Recio contends that, had his criminal history score been United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 22, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-41668 -2- correctly determined, he would have been in Criminal History Category II, rather than in Category III. Because the issue was not raised in the district court, this court’s review is for plain error only. See United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993); F ED . R. C RIM . P. 52(b). When reviewing for plain error in the sentencing context, “this court has concluded that if the trial judge, on remand, could reinstate the same sentence, it will uphold the sentence imposed despite the trial court’s error.” United States v. Leonard , 157 F.3d 343, 346 (5th Cir. 1998). Recio admits that, even if his criminal history score were corrected, the district court could impose the same 46-month sentence on remand. Accordingly, Recio has not shown plain error. See id. Recio acknowledges that Leonard continues to be binding precedent in the sentencing guidelines context, but he contends that this court should apply the presumed-prejudice approach adopted in United States v. Reyna , 358 F.3d 344 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied , S. Ct. , 2004 WL 316508 (May 24, 2004). One panel may not overrule the decisions of another without en banc consideration or an intervening Supreme Court opinion. See Hogue v. Johnson , 131 F.3d 466, 491 (5th Cir. 1997). The en banc decision in Reyna did not extend the presumption of prejudice to errors that result in the application of an incorrect guideline range. See Reyna , 358 F.3d at 353.No. 03-41668 -3- For the first time on appeal, Recio argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) & (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Recio acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4896 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide States with limited authority to reduce the frequency with which qualified law enforcement officers 

must meet firearm training standards in order to be eligible to carry 

a concealed firearm. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2018 

Mr. BACON (for himself, Mr. PERRY, Mr. DONOVAN, and Mr. NORMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide States 

with limited authority to reduce the frequency with which 

qualified law enforcement officers must meet firearm 

training standards in order to be eligible to carry a 

concealed firearm. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘LEOSA Training Ex5 tension Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4896 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITED AUTHORITY OF STATES TO REDUCE FRE2 QUENCY WITH WHICH QUALIFIED LAW EN3 FORCEMENT OFFICERS MUST MEET FIREARM 

4 TRAINING STANDARDS IN ORDER TO BE ELI5 GIBLE TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM. 

6 Section 926C(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code, 

7 is amended by striking ‘‘12-month period’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘period of 12 months (or, at the option of the State under 

9 the law of which the former agency of the individual oper10 ates, such greater number of months, not exceeding 36, 

11 as the State may by law provide)’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32(a)



                            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 Fidelity Federal Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald
R. Neel, President and 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.

         This certification is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed for any other purpose.


/s/ Donald R. Neel
-------------------------------------
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 29, 2004
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 60857

JAMES D. SCHAEFFER , Plaintiff

–

Appell ant Cross

- Appellee,

versus
WARREN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

Defendant s − Appell ees Cross

- Appellants.

Appeal s from th e United States District Court for the S o u thern District of Mississippi No. 3:14

- CV

- 945

Before SMITH , BARKSDALE , and HO , Circuit Judges

. P ER CURIAM : *

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 7, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-60857 Document: 00514752580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2018No. 1 7

- 60857

2 James Schaeffer sued Warren County under various theories including retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. A jury found liability and awarded damages . The district court concluded that Schaeffer had failed to
mit igate damages by finding alternative employment after his termination. The court therefore awarded only nominal damages of one dol lar . The court
also awarded reduced attorneys’ fees. Schaeffer appeals mainly the dam ages determination , and the county cross

- ap peals on, inter alia , the find ing of liability.

We have reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and relevant parts of
the record and have heard oral argument. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essen

tially on the bas e s carefu l ly explained by the district court , especially in its thorough 23

- page post

- trial order of November 27, 2017. Case: 17-60857 Document: 00514752580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2018
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131804 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131804 COA: 261418 Wayne CC: 04-009680-02 DURAN RICHARDO WOODS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 6, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s1218 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2006

Clerk
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 129 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1645-E1646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     STOKOE FARMS 200TH ANNIVERSARY

                                 ______
                                 

                     HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 21, 2012

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the Stokoe Family 
of Scottsville, New York. For 200 years, Stokoe Farms has thrived as a 
family farm, and grown to become an icon of Western New York.
  Thomas Stokoe founded Stokoe Farms in 1812, after immigrating to the 
United States from Nafferton, England. Thomas originally purchased 100 
acres on Bowerman Road in Scottsville. A year later, Thomas married 
Maria Romeyn and by 1859 Thomas and Maria had passed the growing family 
farm onto the next generation.
  Today, the 7th generation of Stokoe family members continues to 
operate Stokoe Farms. It has continued to grow over the years thanks to 
the hard work, commitment and dedication of the Stokoe family, and is 
now home to crops, livestock and agri-entertainment that draw 60,000 
visitors a year.
  Today's farm is sustained by the hard work and dedication of Dick, 
Greg, Kim, Jeff, Scott, Debra, Larry, Martha and Suzanne. Over the 
years, these family members have maintained the farming practices 
pioneered by Thomas 200 years ago. In order to ensure the long-term 
sustainability of the farm, the Stokoe family uses practices such as 
conservation tillage, integrated crop management, and minimal use of 
pesticides to ensure the farm grows for generations to come.
  Perhaps most notably, the Stokoe family brings the same dedication 
and devotion to their work in our Western New York community. When not 
on the farm, the Stokoe family has selflessly served on both school and 
town boards, and devoted themselves in service of their faith.
  Mr. Speaker, like our families, our nation is the product of work 
that has spanned generations. As the Stokoe family celebrates 200 years 
of family farming, they show our nation that it is the time-honored 
values of hard work, integrity and dedication to community and family 
that will sustain our nation, and Stokoe Farms, for another 200 years 
to come.

[[Page E1646]]

                          ____________________
```
Amendment to Employment Agreement


 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 Amendment to Employment Agreement 
  
 The Employment Agreement dated October 21, 2004 (the “Agreement”) by and between Mark H. Perry (the “Employee”) and Netopia, Inc. (the
“Company”) is hereby amended as set forth below. 
  

	1.	Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1 of the Agreement, the parties agree that the Company will employ Employee through August 15, 2005, and Employee’s employment with
the Company will terminate effective August 16, 2005. Nothing in this amendment shall be deemed to limit the Company’s right to terminate the Employee’s employment at any time for Cause as provided in Section 1(c) of the Agreement.


  

	2.	Section 2(a) of the Agreement is amended to provide as follows: “Position. The Company agrees to employ the Employee in an executive position of Interim Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer through May 15, 2005. Effective May 16, 2005 and continuing through August 15, 2005, the Company agrees to employ the Employee as Executive Advisor, during which period Employee (a) will assist the
Company’s new Chief Financial Officer during a transition period and (b) will continue to assist in the Company’s activities related to compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.” 

  

	3.	Section 3 of the Agreement is amended to provide as follows: “From October 21, 2004 through May 15, 2005, the Company agrees to pay the Employee as compensation for his
services a base salary of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) per month. Effective May 16, 2005 and continuing through August 15, 2005, the Company agrees to pay the Employee as compensation for his services a base salary of Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000) per month. Such salary payments shall be paid by the Company on a bi-monthly basis on the same dates as it makes salary payments generally to its employees based in the Unite States. Employee agrees that he shall not be entitled to receive
any additional compensation for his services except as set forth in the Agreement, as amended herein.” 

  

	4.	Nothing in this Amendment to Employment Agreement shall be deemed to change the Employee’s (a) continued eligibility to participate through August 15, 2005 in all employee
benefit plans and programs in which Employee participates as of the date hereof, as provided in Section 4 of the Agreement, and (b) right to receive reimbursement for approved travel and business expenses, as provided in Section 5 of the Agreement.


  

	5.	Except as amended as set forth in this Amendment to Employment Agreement, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

  
 In witness whereof, each of the parties has executed this Amendment to
Employment Agreement, in the case of the Company by its duly authorized President and Chief Executive Officer, as of the date set forth below. 
  

			
	Netopia, Inc.	  	Mark H. Perry
		
	 /s/ Alan B. Lefkof

	  	 /s/ M. H. Perry


	Alan B. Lefkof	  	 
	President and Chief Executive Officer	  	 
	Dated: April 6, 2005	  	Dated: April 6, 2005
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4991 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish 

the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4991 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting Research 

3 and Development for First Responders Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NATIONAL URBAN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY LAB5 ORATORY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Homeland Secu7 rity Act of 2002 is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating the second section 319 (re9 lating to EMP and GMD mitigation research and 

10 development) as section 320; and 

11 (2) by inserting after section 320, as so redesig12 nated, the following new section: 

13 ‘‘SEC. 321. NATIONAL URBAN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY LAB14 ORATORY. 

15 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through 

16 the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, shall 

17 designate the laboratory described in subsection (b) as an 

18 additional laboratory pursuant to the authority under sec19 tion 308(c)(2). Such laboratory shall be used to test and 

20 evaluate emerging technologies and conduct research and 

21 development to assist emergency response providers in 

22 preparing for, and protecting against, threats of terrorism. 

23 ‘‘(b) LABORATORY DESCRIBED.—The laboratory de24 scribed in this subsection is the laboratory— 
3 

•HR 4991 EH

1 ‘‘(1) known, as of the date of the enactment of 

2 this section, as the National Urban Security Tech3 nology Laboratory; 

4 ‘‘(2) previously known as the Environmental 

5 Measurements Laboratory; and 

6 ‘‘(3) transferred to the Department pursuant to 

7 section 303(1)(E). 

8 ‘‘(c) LABORATORY ACTIVITIES.—The laboratory des9 ignated pursuant to subsection (a), shall— 

10 ‘‘(1) conduct tests, evaluations, and assess11 ments of current and emerging technologies, includ12 ing, as appropriate, cybersecurity of such tech13 nologies that can connect to the internet, for emer14 gency response providers; 

15 ‘‘(2) conduct research and development on radi16 ological and nuclear response and recovery; 

17 ‘‘(3) act as a technical advisor to emergency re18 sponse providers; and 

19 ‘‘(4) carry out other such activities as the Sec20 retary determines appropriate.’’. 

21 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

22 in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by striking both 

23 items relating to section 319 and the item relating to sec24 tion 318 and inserting the following: 

‘‘318. Social media working group. 

‘‘319. Transparency in research and development. 
4 

•HR 4991 EH

‘‘320. EMP and GMD mitigation research and development. 

‘‘321. National Urban Security Technology Laboratory.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 19, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4991 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to 

nology Laboratory, and for other purposes. establish the National Urban Security Tech-
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00476-CV

In the Matter of D. J. M.

FROM THE 155TH DISTRICT COURT OF FAYETTE COUNTY

NO. 807, THE HONORABLE JEFF R. STEINHAUSER, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

The reporter’s record in this appeal was originally due to be filed on July 30, 

2018. By request to this Court dated August 6, 2018, Nancy A. Urbanowicz requested an 

extension of time.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure prohibit this Court from granting 

extensions of over 10 days for the filing of reporters’ records in accelerated appeals, including 

those appeals from the decision of a juvenile court under Section 54.02 waiving its exclusive 

jurisdiction and certifying the juvenile to stand trial as an adult. See Tex. Sup. Ct. Misc. Docket 

No. 15-9156 (Aug. 28, 2015); Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c); see also Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., 

ch. 74 (S.B. 888). Accordingly, Nancy A. Urbanowicz is hereby ordered to file the reporter’s 

record in this case on or before August 17, 2018. If the record is not filed by that date, 

Urbanowicz may be required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on August 8, 2018.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field
#### In re PRUDENCE-BONDS CORPORATION.

No. 376.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 26, 1939.

*45Larkin, Rathbone & Perry, of New York City (Henry E. Kelley, Theodore Pearson and W. Frederick Knecht, all of New York City, of counsel), for Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.

Samuel Silbiger, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant George E. Eddy.

Charles M. McCarty, of New York City, for appellant Prudence-Bonds Corporation (New Corporation).

Percival E. Jackson, of New York City (Percival E. Jackson and Milton Loewe, both of New York City, of counsel), for Prudence Securities Advisory Group.

George M. Jaffin and Leonard Klaber, both of New York City (Leonard Klaber and George M. Jaffin, both of New York City, and Harry Schneider, of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for Independent Prudence Bondholders’ Protective Committee.

Milbank, Tweed & Hope, of New York City (Hugh L. M. Cole and W. Crosby Roper, Jr., both of New York City, of counsel), for Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York.

Maclay, Lyeth & Williams, of New York City, for President and Directors of Manhattan Co.

Sullivan & Cromwell, of New York City (J. M. Richardson Lyeth, Robert E. Houston, Jr., John P. Allee, and Arthur A. Burck, all of New York City, of counsel), for Marine Midland Trust Co. of New York.

Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and PATTERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We are of opinion that the district court should have passed on the petitions for allowances to the corporate trustees and their attorneys at the same time that it passed on the other petitions for allowances. The objection that the corporate trustees had not yet accounted was not formidable; it could have been met by simply directing that payment of allowances to corporate trustees be withheld until conclusion of the accountings,. As the situation stands, the aggregate of administration costs, always an important factor in determining the reasonableness of allowances, is wholly uncertain. On the appeal of Bank of Manhattan Company and others in the same position, the order of the district court deferring consideration of applications for allowances by the corporate trustees and their attorneys is reversed, and the matter remanded to the district court with direction to consider the applications' and determine the allowances to be given. Decision of the other appeals will be held in abeyance pending disposition by the. district court on the applications for allowances by the corporate trustees and their attorneys, which disposition may be brought to our attention by a supplemental record.