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

Election Day:7 1,361 

Early Voting:8 60 

Mail Ballots Transmitted10 Mail Ballots Returned11

150,202 142,445 (94.8% of 

transmitted) 

Mail Ballots Counted12 Mail Ballots Rejected13

142,191 (99.8% of 

returned)

254 (0.2% of returned) 

Mail Voting Policies 

Excuse is required for mail voting14

Does not conduct all-mail elections15

Some voters can register as permanent absentee16

EAVS Jurisdictions

55

Total Registered Voters as of 

Nov. 3, 20201

1,269,024 

Registration Forms Received2*

517,145 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3*

10,291 

2020 EAVS Data Brief: West Virginia

 Voter Registration

4.2%

4.7%

27.1%

30.3%

33.7%

In-Person

Mail, Email, Fax

Other

Motor Vehicle Dept.

Online

Source of Registration Applications4

 Voter Turnout  Election Technology

In-Person 

Election 

Day Voters 

396,926

49.5%

Mail Voters 

142,191

17.7%

In-Person 

Early Voters 

256,113

31.9%

Other Mode 

6,437

0.8%

Voters Participating By Mode5

39

28

23

16

0 0

Scanner Ballot

Marking

Device

DRE with

VVPAT

Electronic

Poll

Books

DRE w/o

VVPAT

Hand

Count

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 

56.4%

6
#### CRUICKSHANK-WALLACE, B. v. EGAN, G., et al.

2621 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/25/2017

Reargument Denied 11/22/2017

No. 2013-11158 (Chester)

Affirmed
BTRP

COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAM

BIOLOGICAL THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAM

• The BTRP implements activities to 

prevent the proliferation of biological 

weapons (BW); BW components; and 

BW-related materials, technologies, and 

expertise. 

• The program supports more than 

30 partner nations as they seek to 

improve their biosafety, biosecurity, 

and biosurveillance (BSV) capabilities to 

counter biological threats. 

• The BTRP has worked cooperatively 

with countries across Africa, Europe, 

the Middle East, and Asia to secure 

pathogen collections; enhance biosafety 

and biosecurity (BS&S) at vulnerable 

sites; and strengthen the capacity for 

public health and veterinary systems to 

detect, characterize, and report disease 

outbreaks rapidly and accurately.

The U.S. Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program 

(DoD CTR) invests in strengthening public and veterinary health systems in 

partner countries in order to improve their ability to detect, report, and mitigate 

the spread of infectious disease outbreaks. This work is critical to building a 

strong global health security system which is the world’s best defense against 

pandemics. The Biological Threat Reduction Program (BTRP), part of the DoD 

CTR Program, is implemented by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. 

BTRP protects the United States, its Armed Forces and our allies from 

biological threats by strengthening the capabilities of partner nations and the 

international community to prevent, detect and prepare for outbreaks caused 

by biothreat pathogens.

DTRA provides cross-cutting solutions to enable the Department of Defense, the United 

States Government, and international partners to Deter strategic attack against the 

United States and its allies; Prevent, reduce, and counter WMD and emerging threats; DTRA MISSION

and Prevail against WMD-armed adversaries in crisis and conflict.

KEY FACTS

• The program has cooperated with key 

nations, international organizations, 

and other global health security donors 

to build sustainable BSV capabilities 

with appropriate BS&S practices at 

national, regional, and global levels. 

• Through early detection, the DoD CTR 

Program, with BTRP partners, has 

helped bolster partner nations’ abilities 

to quickly contain outbreaks at their 

source before such outbreaks become 

destabilizing regional events or pose a 

threat to U.S. Armed Forces, the U.S. 

homeland, U.S. interests, or U.S. allies 

and partners abroad
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**Certification
      Pursuant to**


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


**as
      Adopted Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Telestone Technologies Corporation
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Han
      Daqing, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      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 result of operations of the Company.




Dated:  November
      14, 2007




By:
            /s/
                Han DaqingName:
            Han
                DaqingTitle:
            Chief
                Executive Officer (Principal Executive
                Officer)




1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11159

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AARON CLAYTON MCVEA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:18-CR-11-1

Before DAVIS, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Aaron Clayton McVea pleaded guilty to one count of possession with 

intent to distribute methamphetamine, and the district court sentenced him 

within the applicable guidelines range to 125 months in prison, to be followed 

by a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, McVea argues that his 

within-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because U.S.S.G. 

§ 2D1.1 was not formulated using empirical evidence with respect to 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 3, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11159 Document: 00514900686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2019
No. 18-11159

2

methamphetamine offenses. The Government moves for summary affirmance,

asserting that the issue is foreclosed by circuit precedent, as McVea has 

recognized. Alternatively, the Government moves for an extension of time to 

file an appellate brief.

We have held that Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 109-10 

(2007), does not disturb the presumption of reasonableness for guidelines 

sentences even if the relevant Guideline is not empirically based. See United 

States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the 

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative 

motion for an extension of time to file an appellate brief is DENIED as moot.

 Case: 18-11159 Document: 00514900686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2019
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3143

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Leo William Anderson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 4, 2005

Filed: November 17, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leo William Anderson (Anderson) appeals the sentence imposed by the district

court upon his guilty plea to conspiring with others to distribute at least 50 grams of

a mixture or substance containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and 846. Anderson objected to a role enhancement, arguing Blakely v. Washington,

542 U.S. 296 (2004), required the role enhancement be based on a jury’s factual

determination. The district court overruled the objection, finding Blakely did not

affect the Guidelines; calculated a Guidelines imprisonment range of 262 to 327

months (which included a role enhancement); and pronounced an initial sentence of

262 months in prison. Upon the government’s substantial-assistance motion, the
1

The departure for substantial assistance did not render the Booker error

harmless. See United States v. Turnbough, 425 F.3d 1112, 1115 (8th Cir. 2005)

(granting substantial-assistance motion does not render Booker error harmless).

-2-

court stated 52 months was an appropriate reduction, and reduced the sentence to 210

months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. On appeal, Anderson renews

his Blakely argument.

The district court sentenced Anderson under a mandatory Guidelines system.

This was error under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57 (2005), and

Anderson preserved the error, see United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir.

2005) (en banc) (Booker error preserved by, inter alia, raising Blakely), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 266 (2005). Thus, we review for harmless error. See United States v.

Archuleta, 412 F.3d 1003, 1005-06 (8th Cir. 2005). The government has the burden

to prove the error was harmless, and must show the error did not affect Anderson’s

substantial rights–i.e., the district court would have imposed the same sentence under

advisory Guidelines. See id. at 1006-07.

The government fails to convince us the error was harmless. Anderson was

initially sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines range, and the government has

pointed to nothing in the record that shows the district court would have imposed the

same sentence under an advisory Guidelines scheme. See United States v. Haidley,

400 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding not harmless district court’s error in

imposing sentence under mandatory Guidelines scheme where court sentenced

defendant to bottom of Guidelines range and record did not allow appeals court to

“say with any confidence” that sentence would have been same if district court had

treated Guidelines as advisory).1

 Accordingly, we remand for resentencing.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,158,187
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  936,526
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (132,509)
<INVENTORY>                                    529,096
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,510,449
<PP&E>                                       1,663,599
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,486,572)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,687,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,625,482
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       286,267
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,745,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,687,476
<SALES>                                      3,301,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,301,761
<CGS>                                        1,668,220
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,922,568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,213,129
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 794
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                197,359
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            197,359
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   197,359
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Sizeler Property Investors, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Charles E. Miller, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                      /S/ CHARLES E. MILLER, JR.
                                      ------------------------------------
                                      Charles E. Miller, Jr.
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                      March 28, 2003
Total Polling Locations:

Election Day:7 682 

Early Voting:8 197 

Mail Ballots Transmitted10 Mail Ballots Returned11

666,472 634,595 (95.2% of 

transmitted) 

Mail Ballots Counted12 Mail Ballots Rejected13

631,497 (99.5% of 

returned)

3,101 (0.5% of 

returned) 

Mail Voting Policies 

Excuse is required for mail voting14

Does not conduct all-mail elections15

No permanent absentee voting list16

EAVS Jurisdictions

120 

Total Registered Voters as of 

Nov. 3, 20201

3,565,428 

Registration Forms Received2*

1,678,038 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3*

366,101 

2020 EAVS Data Brief: Kentucky

 Voter Registration

2.1%

6.4%

11.8%

20.0%

59.7%

Mail, Email, Fax

Other

In-Person

Online

Motor Vehicle Dept.

Source of Registration Applications4

 Voter Turnout  Election Technology

In-Person 

Election 

Day Voters 

477,612

22.3%

Mail Voters 

631,497

29.5%

In-Person 

Early Voters 

1,024,965

47.9%

Other Mode 

4,741

0.2%

Voters Participating By Mode5

120 114

47

35

25

3

Electronic

Poll

Books

Scanner DRE w/o

VVPAT

DRE with

VVPAT

Ballot

Marking

Device

Hand

Count

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. 

14 Q17 of Policy Survey. 

15 Q18 and Q18a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

Turnout 

63.8%

6
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

610.1 

CA 12-01944 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

 

 

JANE DOE AND JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, 

V ORDER

ESTATE OF STEPHEN B GANDERSON, M.D.,

DECEASED, DEFENDANT,

AND NORTH MEDICAL, P.C., DOING BUSINESS AS THE 

WOMEN’S PLACE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

VENTRE LAW OFFICE, LIVERPOOL (FRANK VENTRE, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

COTE & VAN DYKE, LLP, SYRACUSE (JOSEPH S. COTE OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County

(Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered July 26, 2012. The order granted

the motion of plaintiffs for leave to file and serve an amended

complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: June 7, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002.


I, Paul F. Wallace, certify that:


1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MOA Hospitality, Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
    untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material
    fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
    circumstances under which such statements were made, not
    misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
    report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
    financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly
    present in all material respects the financial condition, results
    of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
    periods presented in this quarterly report.




Date:  November 10, 2003

                                              /s/ Paul F. Wallace
                                              -----------------------
                                              Paul F. Wallace
                                              Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20463-20464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07339]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Pistoia Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 8, 2021, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Pistoia Alliance, Inc. has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade

[[Page 20464]]

Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Semalytix GmbH, Bielefeld, GERMANY; 
Schrodinger, Portland, NY; SAGE Therapeutics, Cambridge, MA; Rapid 
Novor, Waterloo, CANADA; Matador Japan KK, Nagano, JAPAN; Claire 
Bellamy (individual member), Leicestershire, UNITED KINGDOM; Chitrita 
Goswami (individual member), New Delhi, INDIA; Eurofins Discovery, St. 
Charles, MO; Centre for Process Innovation, Wilton, UNITED KINGDOM; and 
Artificial Inc., Palo Alto, CA have been added as parties to this 
venture.
    Also, WorldQuant Predictive, New York, NY; telic, New York, NY; 
Synthace Ltd, London, UNITED KINGDOM; Sapio Sciences, Baltimore, MD; 
PHEMI Systems Corp., Vancouver, CANADA; Mcule, Budapest, HUNGARY; 
GenAIz, Montreal, CANADA; and Apheris AI GmbH, Berlin, GERMANY have 
withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to 
file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on July 15, 2009 (74 FR 34364).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
12, 2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 5, 2021 (86 FR 55002).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-07339 Filed 4-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARK ALLEN PRINKEY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 57 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of July, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC

MCDONOUGH PROPERTIES, L
. . L.C. M & R HOLDINGS, L.L.C., TRI

- D, L.L.C., AND COL. FRANK BARNETT Complainant, 

### v.
CITY OF WETUMPKA Respondent FAA Docket No. 16-12-11

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings. 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR, Part 16 , subpart B , the date by which the Final Agency Decision will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to on or about January 16, 2015, 2014. An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

Associate Administrator

for Airports

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

# 11- 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on ]) 

# t;-c., { { , 2014, I caused to be pl aced in the United States mail (first class mai l , postage paid) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension of Time, addressed to: Counsel for Complai nant Raymond Veatch, Esq. P. 0. Box 302 Tracys Landing, MD 20779 Ema il: manager@intemationa]acs.com Wade Ramsey, Esq. Ramsey & Associates, LLC P. 0. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 Emai l : waderamsey@aol.com Co unsel fo r Respondent Pablo 0. Ni.iesch, Esq. Anjali G. Pate, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid, LLP 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N
.W. Washington, DC 20036 Emai l : pablo. nuesch @spiegl mcd.com Hand Delivered to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedin gs Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0

- 100 FAA Southern Reg i on, AS0-600

Claudia Roberts Airport Compliance and Management

Analysis