alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Sent Via Electronic Mail

June 27, 2011

Dear Registered Manufacturer,

Over the course of the last 12-18 months, the EAC has noticed what appears to be an 

increasing trend in which voting systems submitted to the EAC for conformance testing to 

the VVSG are clearly not ready to be tested by our VSTLs. Recent examples include very 

late delivery of hardware components to VSTLs and the submission of software packages 

containing numerous fundamental coding discrepancies. Submitting systems for testing 

before they are functionally ready to participate in conformity testing is a waste of time and 

money for all entities involved in this process. The EAC reminds manufacturers that VSTL 

testing should not be used to replace rigorous internal pre-production and beta testing by 

voting system manufacturers. In addition, please be reminded that Volume II, Section 1.6 

of the VVSG states that:

“The system submitted for testing shall meet the following requirements:

a. The hardware submitted for certification testing shall be equivalent, in form and 

function, to the actual production version of the hardware units or the COTS hardware 

specified for use in the TDP

b. The software submitted for certification testing shall be the exact software that will 

be used in production units

c. Engineering or developmental prototypes are not acceptable, unless the vendor can 

show that the equipment to be tested is equivalent to standard production units both 

in performance and construction”

As of this date, the many of voting systems submitted to EAC VSTLs have failed to meet the 

requirements noted above. The EAC remains committed to implementing a certification 

program that will maximize the limited resources available in the election community 

while still providing a conformity assessment process that ultimately leads to better voting 

systems for election officials and voters. We trust that the manufacturing community 

agrees with this goal and will work to ensure that systems submitted for certification are 

truly ready to undergo conformity assessment by our VSTLs.

Voting System Testing & Certification Division

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20005

www.eac.gov
2

If you have any additional concerns or questions regarding the information contained in 

this letter or anything else concerning the EAC Testing and Certification Program, please do 

not hesitate to contact me by phone at 202-566-3100, or via email at BHancock@eac.gov

Sincerely,

Brian J. Hancock, Director

Voting System Testing and Certification
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5356]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-85, RM-9026]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Belgrade, MT

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by 
Gallatin Valley Witness, Inc., proposing the allotment of Channel 256A 
to Belgrade, Montana, as that community's second local FM broadcast 
service. The coordinates for Channel 256A are 45-46-36 and 111-10-36.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 21, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before May 6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC. 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Bryan Cave LLP, 700 
Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-85, adopted February 21, 
1997, and released February 28, 1997. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, 
NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, 
Washington, DC. 20037, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contact.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-5356 Filed 3-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 96 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 96

Apologizing for those who suffered as slaves under the Constitution and 
                 laws of the United States until 1865.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 1997

Mr. Hall of Ohio (for himself, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. McNulty, Mr. 
    Christensen, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Ensign, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Pitts, Mr. 
Traficant, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Bonior, and Mrs. Linda Smith of Washington) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Apologizing for those who suffered as slaves under the Constitution and 
                 laws of the United States until 1865.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress apologizes to African-Americans whose ancestors 
suffered as slaves under the Constitution and laws of the United States 
until 1865.
                                 <all>
```
ADR Process’

Employee contacts ADR
Advisor

bene el

V

Employee Interviewed
by ADR Advisor and
informed of ADR
techniques versus
traditional EEO process
informed of ADR

y

Employee
elects
ADR?

ADR Advisor
coordinates with DIR-
GC and MER as
appropriate

Inform other party(ies)

fA
Yes 7 determination:
Legally
Sufficient?

ADR Completed
End of Process

Agreement reviewed by
DIR-GC, DIR-EO, MER and
others as appropriate

ADR Advisor identifies
further rights

Successful?

Employee informed
of next steps in
traditional process
- ADR Ends -

ADR Occurs

f 4 Other party

f elects to

participate
in ADR

Make administrative and
logistical arrangements for

ADR session
Fenner reerepepeeneegpneeeeerneenneee need

to the issue
˳˹˷ ˱ 

˴˳˵ 

˷˲˱ 

ˏ((monɐmp*o 

˱ 

ˏ((mon&o 

M#'#& 

&.#)(/R!#.,, 

OȨ

(.,(. I

!MV 

P/&#˽ #.(

OȨ

!##&#.# ˽!(3 

M#&#.,3 

R,/#.'(.OȨ 

O. ,S..˽!(3 R!#.,.#)(!,#0

R!#.,.#)(O. , 

307200 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

!#nopo#m*#mp)mpp 

mo(!#nopmopn 

˳ˇ˹˷˸ˇ˶˶˹ 

o#m*ɚɣmop!#nopo#m* 

dfhefqfhnmFnqleddhmd 

˴˱˸ˇ˳˱˱ 

ɐm*ʃp)o#m*Nmo#ʃo#m*n*o 

˱ 

P)&&#(! 

P& 

UO˳˽V˽ ˽(. P,)0##)(& 

ˏ&&). 

,&3V). 

˳(., 

V).3 

M#& 

T/,()/. 

O.,

157667 

6589 5296 610 818 0 0 

o#m*#ɣpp*mpoǺMo"m 

˳)/(.#/&& ˳)/(. 

P,. 

R$. P,)0##)(& 

O.,

6589 

1851 

233 46 

dfhnmEɣqnmhehnmkɛkknfe 

U(#),'S,0# 

N)('#&#.,3O0,

O., 

o#m*ˏɣOɐɚɚ 

˷˵˳ 

˳˵˵ 

˱ 

˹˹˷ 

ˏ((monp*n)#oo 

OɚL OɚL 

PpmǷ#n#m*(ˏ((momo(ă˹Ă˸˲˺ pp*mpomo(ă˲Ă˶˹˺Ă˺˺˲ 

N).˴S) ˴Ȧ&˴3˴˴&(%˴),˴y,)˴/˴.)˴.˴().˴#(!˴,*),.), 

$/,##.#)(˴().)&&.#(!... 

dkdfˈ SEɐ 

OɚL 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 	 --- - -

- -

- - -

˳˱˲˷"ɚ!oBrief

P"OIɐO U ' 

"

" - '-

"

- "

"

- - - "

" "

' -'

- - "
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 9449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5085]



[[Page 9449]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

International Development Cooperation Agency


Notice of Public Information Collections Submitted to OMB for 
Review

SUMMARY: Agency for International Development (AID) has submitted the 
following information collection to OMB for review and clearance under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments 
regarding this information collection are best assured of having their 
full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Comments 
should be addressed to: Desk Officer for AID, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, 
D.C. 20503. Copies of submission may be obtained by calling (202) 516-
1743.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Number: OMB 0412-0552.
    Form Number: N/A.
    Title: Financial Status Report.
    Type of Submission: Renew.
    Purpose: U.S.A.I.D. wants to require grant and cooperative 
agreement recipients who work in multiple countries in Eastern Europe 
and the New Independent States to provide expenditure reports by 
country. USAID/ENI has stated in the ``remarks'' section of SF-269 or 
SF-269A, or other applicable approved financial report form that ``For 
assistance programs in Eastern Europe or the New Independent States 
which cover programs in more than one country, recipients shall specify 
the amount of the total Federal share which was expended for each 
country * * *'' The USAID/ENI has sought a clear deviation to the 
statute of the Office of Budget and Management in accordance with the 
22 CFR 226.4. The information are being collected so that USAID will 
know how much of its funds are being spent for each country in order to 
report to Congress, the Office of Management and Budget and other 
requesters. Also, the reporting requirements are necessary to assure 
that USAID funds are expended in accordance with statutory requirements 
and USAID policies.

Annual Report Burden:
    Respondents: 1,000
    Annual responses: 320
    Total Annual Responses: 5120

    Dated: February 20, 1997.
Willette Smith,
Acting Chief, Information Support Services Division, Office of 
Administrative Services, Bureau of Management.
[FR Doc. 97-5085 Filed 2-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8515 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to narrow the scope of the 

limitation on liability provided under section 230 of that Act, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 2, 2020 

Mr. GOSAR (for himself and Ms. GABBARD) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to narrow the 

scope of the limitation on liability provided under section 

230 of that Act, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Don’t Push My But5 tons Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON IMMUNITY. 

7 Section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 

8 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8515 IH

1 ‘‘(3) EXCEPTION.— 

2 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any 

3 other provision of this subsection, and subject 

4 to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, the pro5 tection provided under paragraph (1) or (2) 

6 shall not apply with respect to a provider of an 

7 interactive computer service that— 

8 ‘‘(i) collects information regarding the 

9 habits, preferences, or beliefs of a user of 

10 the service; and 

11 ‘‘(ii) uses an automated function to 

12 deliver content to the user described in 

13 clause (i) that corresponds with the habits, 

14 preferences, or beliefs identified as a result 

15 of the action taken under that clause with 

16 respect to that user. 

17 ‘‘(B) APPLICABILITY.—Subparagraph (A) 

18 shall not apply to a situation in which— 

19 ‘‘(i) a user of an interactive computer 

20 service uses an automated function to de21 liver content to that user; or 

22 ‘‘(ii) subject to subparagraph (C), a 

23 user of an interactive computer service 

24 knowingly and intentionally elects to reVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:20 Oct 29, 2020 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8515.IH H8515

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8515 IH

1 ceive the content described in subpara2 graph (A)(ii). 

3 ‘‘(C) BURDEN OF PROOF.—A provider of 

4 an interactive computer service shall have the 

5 burden of proving by clear and convincing evi6 dence under subparagraph (B)(ii) that a user of 

7 the interactive computer service knowingly and 

8 intentionally elected to receive the content de9 scribed in subparagraph (A)(ii).’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY
2800 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-2800

OCT 97 227
MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY WORKFORCE

SUBJECT: FY23 Anti-Harassment Policy Statement

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) prohibits harassment and
retaliation against an employee for reporting harassment. This includes harassment that is not
unlawful, but adversely affects the work environment. Any DSCA employee who engages in
harassing and/or retaliatory conduct is subject to disciplinary action. All personnel within
DSCA will be treated with dignity and respect. I will not tolerate nor condone harassment, and
will address any allegation of harassment promptly and effectively. DSCA's Talent
Management (TM) Directorate manages the Agency's anti-harassment program in partnership
with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and in accordance with DSCAI Instruction 1020.01,
“Workplace Harassment Prevention and Response” dated August 15, 2021.

Harassment is behavior that is unwelcome or offensive to a reasonable person, and
creates conditions that interfere with work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive work environment. Harassment can be oral, visual, written, physical, or electronic.
Prohibited workplace harassment behaviors may include bullying, hazing, non-verbal gestures,
offensive comments/conduct, and intimidating acts.

All individuals within the Federal workplace, including Federal employees, contractors,
students/interns, and military personnel, are protected from harassment. Individuals who believe
they have been subject to harassment or retaliation, or have witnessed harassing or retaliatory
conduct, should immediately report the matter to the supervisor of the employee engaging in the
misconduct (if known), their supervisor, or to the Anti-Harassment Program Manager, Talent
Management (TM) Directorate.

Managers and supervisors must play an active role to ensure our work environment is free
from harassment. Upon becoming aware that an employee is being harassed, managers and
supervisors will take prompt, appropriate action to stop the harassment and will immediately
report all allegations of harassment to DSCA’s TM Directorate. Join me in ensuring DSCA is a

workplace free of harassment.
a. Hurrah

James A. Hursch
Director
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.4

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                     NORTH AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.

     The undersigned, desiring to amend the Certificate of Incorporation of
North American Technologies Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Corporation"), pursuant to Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law,
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

     FIRST: The Board of Directors of the Corporation, by unanimous written
     consent of the directors, evidenced by board resolutions, and approval of
     the requisite vote of each class of stockholders, has duly adopted the
     following resolution proposing and declaring advisable the following
     amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation:

          RESOLVED, that the number of shares of Common Stock, par value $0.001
     per share, which the Corporation shall have the authority to issue pursuant
     to the first paragraph of Article IV of the Corporation's Amended and
     Restated Articles of Incorporation, shall be reduced from 100,000,000 to
     50,000,000.

     SECOND: That the aforesaid amendment has been duly adopted in accordance
     with Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

     THIRD: That this amendment shall become effective on June 29, 1999.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be signed by Henry Sullivan, its Chief Executive Officer, and
Judith Knight Shields, its Chief Financial Officer, this 29th day of June, 1999.

                                 NORTH AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES
                                 GROUP, INC.

                                 By: /s/ Henry W. Sullivan
                                     ---------------------
                                         Henry W. Sullivan
                                         Chief Executive Officer

                                 By: /s/ Judith Knight Shields
                                     -------------------------
                                         Judith Knight Shields
                                         Chief Financial Officer
2022 EAVS Data Brief: U.S. Virgin Islands EAVS Jurisdictions:

1 

 Voter Registration 

Active Reg. Voters as of Nov. 8, 20221 

39,910 

Reg. Forms Received2* 

3,213 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3* 

--

Voters Removed from Reg. Rolls4* 

12 

Source of Registration Applications5 

In Person 100.0% 

Motor Vehicle Dept. 0.0% 

Online 0.0% 

Other 0.0% 

Mail, Email, Fax 0.0% 

 Voting and Turnout 

Voters Participating By Mode6 

7 Turnout 

56.5% 

In-Person 

Election Day 

9,671 

42.9% 

Mail 

532 

2.4% 

In-Person 

Early 

11,851 

52.5% 

Other 

503 

2.2% 

Total Voting Locations8: 11 

Total Poll Workers9: 225 

Election Technology 

Percentage of Jurisdictions Using...10 

100.0% 

Ballot 

Marking 

Devices 

100.0% 

Electronic

Poll 

Books 

100.0% 

Scanners 

0.0% 

DREs w/o

VVPAT 

0.0% 

 DREs with

VVPAT 

0.0% 

Hand 

Counting 

 Mail Ballots 

• 532 mail ballots transmitted11 

• 87.0% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters12 

• 114.9% of returned mail ballots counted13 

• 0.0% of returned mail ballots rejected14 

• Did not conduct all-mail election15 

• Did not allow drop boxes16 

• Did not allow ballot curing17 

 Election Audits18 

-- Access audit 

-- Ballot design audit 

Ballot reconciliation -- audit 

Compliance/ -- procedural audit 

-- Legal audit 

Logic and accuracy ✔ testing 

Post-election ✔ tabulation audit 

-- Other 

-- Eligibility audit 

Notes 

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

/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-and-surveys. 

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 2020 

general election to close of 

registration for 2022 general 

election. 

1 A1b of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 A9a of EAVS. 

5 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a/A3a. 

In Person is A4b/A3a. Online is 

A4c/A3a. Motor Vehicle Dept. is 

A4d/A3a. Other is the sum of 

A4e–A4l/A3a. May not sum to 

100% because of missing data. 

6 In-Person Election Day is F1b. 

Mail is F1d+F1g. In-Person Early 

is F1f. Other is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

7 F1a/A1b of EAVS. 

8 D2a of EAVS. 

9 D7a of EAVS. 

10 F3a–f, F5a–F9a of EAVS; 

number of jurisdictions that 

responded “Yes” divided by

number of jurisdictions in 

state/territory. 

11 C1a of EAVS. 

12 C1b/C1a of EAVS. 

13 C8a/C1b of EAVS. 

14 C9a/C1b of EAVS. 

15 Q17 and Q17a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

17 Q20 of Policy Survey. 

18 Q36 of Policy Survey. See 

survey questionnaire for full 

definitions of each type of 

audit.
# C_2021422EN.01002001.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/20

---

Action brought on 10 August 2021 — Tralux and Others v Parliament

(Case T-488/21)

(2021/C 422/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Tralux, Société Générale de travaux — Luxembourg Sàrl (Leudelange, Luxembourg), Eric Soldermann, René-Pierre Ortiz, Rodrigue Thiemann, Richard Lang, Marie Real, Olivier Lingelser, Architectes Associés, Aea Architectes (Mulhouse, France), Energie & Environnement — Ingénieurs Conseils (Niederanven, Luxembourg), Edeis (Ivry-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: G. Krieger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find the present action to be admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

find the present action to be admissible;

| — | on the substance, find the action to be justified and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the substance, find the action to be justified and well founded;

and accordingly,

| — | annul the decision of the European Parliament of 20 July 2021 to reject the applicants’ tender of 16 April 2021. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 20 July 2021 to reject the applicants’ tender of 16 April 2021.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision to reject their offer filed in response to tender procedure No 06D10/2020/SI2KAD-01 for the design and construction of a ‘Europa Experience’ space and a conference centre in Luxembourg, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 51 of Regulation 2018/1046. (1) The applicants rely on several arguments in support of that plea. Firstly, they submit that they met the selection criteria and, in particular, the minimum staffing requirement. Secondly, the applicants argue that the tender specifications did not require the production of supporting documents, failing which the tender would be disregarded. Finally, they added that clarifications to the tender could have been submitted, at the request of the contracting authority, after the submission of their tender. In any event, according to the applicants, those clarifications were not such as to substantially alter the documents submitted.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

---