alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Total Polling Locations:

Election Day:7 275 

Early Voting:8 246 

Mail Ballots Transmitted10 Mail Ballots Returned11

313,193 273,784 (87.4% of 

transmitted) 

Mail Ballots Counted12 Mail Ballots Rejected13

272,318 (99.5% of 

returned)

1,465 (0.5% of 

returned) 

Mail Voting Policies 

No excuse is required for mail voting14

Conducts all-mail elections statewide15

No permanent absentee voting list16

EAVS Jurisdictions

246 

Total Registered Voters as of 

Nov. 3, 20201

489,277 

Registration Forms Received2*

98,866 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3*

66,126 

2020 EAVS Data Brief: Vermont

 Voter Registration

2.0%

9.0%

14.9%

34.5%

39.6%

Mail, Email, Fax

Other

In-Person

Online

Motor Vehicle Dept.

Source of Registration Applications4

 Voter Turnout  Election Technology

In-Person 

Election 

Day Voters 

90,959

24.7%

Mail Voters 

272,318

73.9%

In-Person 

Early Voters 

2,033

0.6%

Other Mode

2,986

0.8%

Voters Participating By Mode5

246

145

101

0 0 0

Ballot

Marking

Device

Scanner Hand

Count

DRE w/o

VVPAT

DRE with

VVPAT

Electronic

Poll

Books

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9

 Mail Balloting

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov. 

The data shown are certified as final by state election authorities.

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available, ” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2018 

general election to close of 

registration for 2020 general 

election. 

1 A1a of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a. InPerson is A4b. Online is A4c. 

Motor Vehicle Dept. is A4d. 

Other is the sum of A4e–A4l. 

Denominator is A3a. 

5 In-Person Election Day Voters 

is F1b. Mail Voters is F1d+F1g. 

In-Person Early Voters is F1f. 

Other Mode is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Denominator is sum of F1b–

F1h. 

6 F1a of EAVS. Denominator 

is citizen voting age 

population (CVAP). 

7 D3a of EAVS. 

8 D4a of EAVS. 

9 F3a–d, F5a, F6a, F7a, F8a, 

and F11a of EAVS. 

10 C1a of EAVS. 

11 C1b of EAVS. 

12 C3a of EAVS. 

13 C4a of EAVS. 

14Q17 of Policy Survey. 

15 Q18 and Q18a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

Turnout 

73.8%

6
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8453 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8453

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 5302 Galveston Road in Houston, Texas, as the ``Vanessa Guillen Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 30, 2020

Ms. Garcia of Texas (for herself, Mr. Castro of Texas, Mr. Gonzalez of 
  Texas, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Vela, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. 
   Roy, Mr. Veasey, Mr. Williams, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hurd of Texas, Mr. 
 Allred, Mr. Green of Texas, Ms. Escobar, Mr. Babin, and Mr. Crenshaw) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 5302 Galveston Road in Houston, Texas, as the ``Vanessa Guillen Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. VANESSA GUILLEN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 5302 Galveston Road in Houston, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Vanessa Guillen Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Vanessa 
Guillen Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,353
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,942,494
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 12,869,151
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,232,770
<PP&E>                                       7,755,767
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,122,960
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,404,630
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        130
<COMMON>                                       228,459
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,492,868
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,122,960
<SALES>                                      8,786,925
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,297,695
<CGS>                                        9,054,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,783,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             179,296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,665,227)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,665,227)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,665,227)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021462EN.01005702.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/57

---

Action brought on 22 September 2021 — Blueroots Technology v EUIPO — Rezk-Salama and Breitlauch (SKILLTREE STUDIOS)

(Case T-607/12)

(2021/C 462/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Blueroots Technology GmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: A. Huber-Erlenwein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christof Rezk-Salama (Trier, Germany), Linda Breitlauch (Trier)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark SKILLTREE STUDIOS — EU trade mark No 13 271 821

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2021 in Case R 2218/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision or amend it to the effect that trade mark No 13 271 821 ‘SKILLTREE STUDIOS’ is declared invalid and cancelled in respect of Classes 9, 41 and 42. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision or amend it to the effect that trade mark No 13 271 821 ‘SKILLTREE STUDIOS’ is declared invalid and cancelled in respect of Classes 9, 41 and 42.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
MI pesticides permits 

Hobrla, Richard (DEQ) 

to: 

Jordan Page 

08/13/2009 12:49 PM 

Cc: 

"Baldwin, Frank (DEQ)", "Klemans, Diana (DEQ)" 

Show Details 

Frank Baldwin asked that I respond to your request for examples of permits issued by the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality for aquatic nuisance control. These permits are required when 

pesticides are used to control aquatic nuisance plants or swimmers itch. I’ve attached two examples 

for your consideration. The permit for Little Whitefish Lake is one of our typical permits. The 

permit for Lake Connamara is an example of a permit issued for a whole lake treatment. If you have 

questions about these permits or about Michigan’s aquatic nuisance control program, feel free to 

contact me directly.

Rick Hobrla

hobrlar@michigan.gov

Water Bureau

Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality

517-335-4173

From: Page.Jordan@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Page.Jordan@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:44 PM

To: Baldwin, Frank (DEQ)

Subject: MI pesticides permits?

Frank,

We're interested in reviewing an example to the aquatic nuisance control

permit issued by MDEQ. Can you tell me what universes the permit covers

and what type, if any, monitoring is required? Is it possible to get a

copy of an example permit?

Thanks,

Jordan Page, ORISE Fellow

Office of Wastewater Management, Permits Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington DC 20460

Phone: 202.564.2952

Page.Jordan@epa.gov

 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jpage01\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7999.... 5/12/2010
---

EXHIBIT 32








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 Air Methods Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Aaron D. ToddAaron D. ToddChief Executive OfficerAugust 6, 2010/s/ Trent J. CarmanTrent J. CarmanChief Financial OfficerAugust 6, 2010
(logo) **TRIMONT**

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Per the applicable ServicingAgreement for each of the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Trimont Real Estate Advisors, LLC, inits applicable capacities as listed on Schedule I (“Trimont”), hereby certifiesas follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2022 (the “ReportingPeriod”):

 

1.       A review of Trimont’s activities duringthe Reporting Period and of its performance under the applicable ServicingAgreement has been made under such officer’s supervision; and

 

2.       To the best of such officer’s knowledge,based on such review, Trimont has fulfilled all of its obligations under theapplicable Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period except as described in Exhibit A attached hereto.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February-2023.

 

 

Trimont Real Estate Advisors,LLC, as Sub-servicer

 

By: /s/ Cindy Barreda

Name: Cindy Barreda

Title: Authorized Signatory

 

 

SCHEDULE I

 

**Transaction****                 ****Capacity**

 

MSBAM2015-C21      Sub-servicer

MSBAM2015-C22      Sub-servicer

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

Trimont self-identified certaininstances in which reconciliations were not completed timely and managementconducted remediation of these situations, including providing additionalresourcing to the reconciliation team during the Reporting Period.Reconciliations are now being performed timely across the portfolio.
# C_2021471EN.01005101.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/51

---

Action brought on 15 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-588/21)

(2021/C 471/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain), Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0005

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2021 in Case R 1008/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | alter the contested decision to:






  — | allow the applicant’s appeal, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision to:

—

allow the applicant’s appeal,

| — | dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicants’ applications to declare the contested design invalid, |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicants’ applications to declare the contested design invalid,

| — | order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

| — | order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s fees and costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);

| — | Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Misinterpretation of patent application EP 3 005 948 A2 and the applicant’s multiple design application No. 1 431 829-0001-0010. |
| --- | --- |

—

Misinterpretation of patent application EP 3 005 948 A2 and the applicant’s multiple design application No. 1 431 829-0001-0010.

---
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Abcor Products, Inc.
(the "Company") certifies that:

1.   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
August 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

July 8, 2005                         /s/ Jeremy Feakins
                                     ------------------------------------
                                     Jeremy Feakins (Chief Executive
                                      Officer and Chief Financial Officer)
# C_2021391EN.01002901.xml

| 27.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/29

---

Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (Device of a combination of lines in black and white forming a square)

(Case T-502/21)

(2021/C 391/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Device of a combination of lines in black and white forming a square) — Application for registration No 18 252 146

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2021 in Case R 78/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the perception of the relevant consumers; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the perception of the relevant consumers;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to the trademark at issue. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to the trademark at issue.

---
# Federal Pell Grant Program

- U.S. Department of Education Announces It Will Expand the Second Chance Pell Experiment for the 2022-2023 Award Year Today, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) announced it will expand the Second Chance Pell experiment for the 2022-2023 award year. The Second Chance Pell experiment has provided education opportunities for thousands of justice-involved individuals who have previously been unable to access federal need-based financial aid.
- Secretary Cardona Holds Virtual Roundtable to Discuss the Importance of Providing Pell Grants for Incarcerated Individuals This afternoon, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona held a virtual roundtable to showcase the importance of providing Pell Grants for incarcerated individuals by speaking with students and former students who took college courses in prison.
- Department of Education Launches Outreach Campaign to Millions of K-12 Students and Federal Pell Grant Recipients Now Eligible for Monthly Discounts on Broadband Internet Service The U.S. Department of Education today launched a major  outreach campaign to millions of students who are now eligible for a monthly  discount on broadband internet service under a temporary program administered  by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
No. 11-10053.

#### In re Owen.

Petition for writ of prohibition denied.
-------··· 

Unclassified 

Nuclear Enterprise Directorate (NE) 

Unclassified 1 
 

-------··· 

Unclassified 

NE Mission 

Provide innovative support to Department of Defense (DoD) 

warfighters, OSD, the Joint Staff, the Interagency, Allies and Partners, 

to ensure a safe, secure, reliable, and effective strategic deterrent; 

and to counter threat networks 

Unclassified 2 
-------··· 

Insert picture Insert picture

Nuclear Enterprise Core Functions 

3 

 Joint Mission 

Assurance 

Assessments 

 Balanced Survivability 

Assessments 

 DoD Red Team 

 Cyber 

 Analysis 

 Assessment Report 

Repository 

 Defense Nuclear 

Surety Inspection 

Oversight 

 PRP Staff Assistance 

Visits 

 DIAMONDS 

 Defense Stockpile 

Management System 

 Stockpile Emergency 

Verification (SEV) 

 Weapons Program 

Managers 

Ensure Nuclear 

Surety 

Insert picture 

Provide 

Accountability and 

Logistics Educate and Train 

Insert picture 

Oversee Nuclear 

Inspections 

Execute 

Assessments 

 Defense Nuclear 

Weapons School 

 Nuclear Weapons 

Instructional Museum 

Our keys to success are our people and our ability to provide independent assessments to our customers 

 Force on Force 

Exercises 

 Nuclear Weapons 

Accident/Incident 

Exercises 

 Weapons System 

Safety Reports 

 Security Deviation 

Reports 

 Nuclear Security 

Policy 
 

 

 

 

 

 

-------··· 

Unclassified 

NE Current Requirements 

• Subject Matter Experts (to include Advisory and Assistance Services) and 

program management for all areas of the mission (e.g. nuclear weapon 

safety) 

• IT application designers, system administrators, and system engineers to 

design, build, maintain, and administer U.S. nuclear weapon accounting 

system(s); cyber tools for mission assurance assessments; and 

modeling/simulation 

• Security professionals and cross-domain engineers versed in facility 

protection, mission assurance assessments, and force-on-force tests 

• Professional emergency response/disaster planning/preparedness support 

Unclassified 4 
----

Unclassified 

NE Future Requirements 

Capacity and Capability Enhancement 

• Moving forward, NE will apply resources to expanding capacity relative to 

the multiple lines of effort delineated in our current requirements on the 

previous slide 

Future Initiatives 

• Improve DTRA capability to provide high-fidelity cyber assessments and 

threat-based mission assurance assessments, and solutions for nuclear 

physical security 

• Expand DTRA capacity to provide educational, training, and exercise 

support that will enhance Combatant Command and Special Operations 

Forces (SOF) capabilities to plan, control, and execute U.S. and allied 

missions that integrate U.S. nuclear and non-nuclear forces 

Unclassified 5
#### Larry Wayne SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6972

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 21, 2017

Larry Wayne Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry Wayne Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012), A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When-the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*