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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6457

HERMAN K. SIMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ELDRIDGE E. HODGE; MICHAEL YORK; J. WATKINS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-01-806-1)

Submitted: June 11, 2002 Decided: July 22, 2002

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Herman K. Simpson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Herman K. Simpson appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

2001), for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West

Supp. 2001). Simpson also appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We dismiss

in part and affirm in part.

Parties in a civil action, in which the United States is not

a party, are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257,

264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229

(1960)).

The district court’s order denying § 1983 relief was entered

on the docket on November 6, 2001. Simpson’s notice of appeal was

filed on March 14, 2002. Because Simpson failed to file a timely

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the

appeal period, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction.

With regard to the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, we have

reviewed the record, the district court’s order, and Simpson’s
3

informal brief filed in this court. Because Simpson failed to

challenge on appeal the district court’s disposition of the Rule

60(b) motion, he has waived appellate review of that order. 4th

Cir. R. 34(b). We therefore affirm this portion of the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Simpson, No.

CA-01-806-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 19, 2002). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

# AGENCY:

Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

# ACTION:

Notice.

                    This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under the EB program that has occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the State's EB status (see                     **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                     for more details).                

## Information for Claimants

The duration of benefits payable in the EB program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a state ending an EB period, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice to each individual who is currently filing a claim for EB of the forthcoming end of the EB period and its effect on the individual's rights to EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(4)).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance Room S-4524, Attn: Kevin Stapleton, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3009 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email:                         *Stapleton.Kevin@dol.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Based on the data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on March 14, 2022, the seasonally-adjusted Total Unemployment Rate (TUR) for New Jersey fell below the 6.5% threshold necessary to remain “on” in EB. Therefore the payable period in EB for New Jersey will end on April 9, 2022. The trigger notice covering state eligibility for the EB program can be found at:                     *http://ows.doleta.gov/​unemploy/​claims_​arch.as.*

Signed in Washington, DC.

Angela Hanks,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor.

[FR Doc. 2022-07092 Filed 4-4-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P
# Cover Page

# How to Use

# Revision History

# Principle 1

# Principle 2

# Principle 3

# Principle 4

# Principle 5

# Principle 6

# Principle 7

# Principle 8

# Principle 9

# Principle 10

# Principle 11

# Principle 12

# Principle 13

# Principle 14

# Principle 15
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

633 3rd St. NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20001

EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2021-01

VVSG 2.0 Principle 4 – Interoperability

Guideline 4.3:

Widely used hardware interfaces and communications protocols are used.

Sections of Standards or Guidelines:

4.3-A Standard device interfaces

Standard, common hardware interfaces and protocols must be used to connect devices.

Date:

May 27th, 2021

Question(s):

What is considered the boundary of the hardware interface?

Discussion:

This interoperability requirement is intended to facilitate ease of connectivity between devices

of a voting system without requiring licensing, proprietary hardware, or wiring schematics.

Electrical and electronic connections must utilize standardized formats. Published 

communication protocols are necessary to allow for widely understood data transmission 

mechanisms.

There are instances where proprietary hardware or cabling is part of the EAC Certified 

configuration of a device that constitutes the “interface” to the device. These are considered 

adapters and may be implemented for reasons such as electrical compatibility or for security 

purposes.

Conclusion:

The intent of 4.3-A Standard device interfaces may be considered satisfied if the proprietary 

hardware or cabling terminates in a standardized electrical format and utilizes a published 

communication protocol. Components utilized in this capacity must be documented in the 

manufacturer TDP, and part numbers must be documented appropriately by the VSTL in the 

Test Report.

This termination may be considered the boundary of the hardware interface.
 

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

633 3rd St. NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20001

Effective Date:

Immediately effective for all applications submitted for VVSG 2.0 evaluation.
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

633 3rd St. NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20001

EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2021-02 Source and Integrity of Election Records

EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation

2021-02 13.2 Source and Integrity of Election Records

VVSG 2.0 Principle 13 – Data Protection

Guideline 13.2:

The source and integrity of electronic tabulation reports are verifiable.

Sections of Standards or Guidelines:

13.2-A – Signing stored election records

Cast vote records and ballot images must be digitally signed when stored and before being

transmitted.

Date:

July 12th, 2021

Question(s):

Does the requirement for digital signing of cast vote records (CVRs) apply to common data

format exchanges (CDFs)?

Discussion:

The context of this question is with respect to Principle 4 – Interoperability. Principle 4 does not 

prescribe data protections within the requirements of that section, nor do the currently 

published CDF specifications. While Principle 13 – Data Protection does not explicitly call out 

that it is applicable to CDF exchanges, it does apply to the data contained within the CDFs 

themselves.

Guideline 13.2 – Source and integrity of election records covers the requirement that cast vote

records (CVRs) and ballot images be digitally signed both when stored and before being

transmitted. The EMS needs to be able to cryptographically certify all electronic voting records.

Digital signatures are a form of integrity protection that can also help trace the source of any

updates or alterations to election records.

This is one example of how Principle 13 applies to CDF data exchanges. This RFI is intended to 

make it clear that data protection requirements within VVSG 2.0 apply to CDFs where possible.

Conclusion:

It is a requirement of 13.2-A that CVRs, including CDFs that contain CVRs, must be digitally 

signed when stored and before being transmitted.
 

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

633 3rd St. NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20001

EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2021-02 Source and Integrity of Election Records

Effective Date:

As of the date this document is published.
#### B. Kilgore v. Larry Dimmitt, Inc.

153 So. 138.

Opinion Filed February 27, 1934.

*70*C. E. Ware*and *Edwin W. Grenelle,*for Petitioner;

*Phillips & Thompson,*for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

— Petitioner, B. Kilgore, was sued in the 'County Court of Pinellas County in an action at law. Demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration was interposed by him, sustained by the county judge, and final judgment consequent entered for Kilgore on his demurrer. Thereafter on appeal from the county court to the circuit court, the judgment of the county court was reversed and the cause remanded to the county court with directions to overrule the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration and proceed according to law.

Under such circumstances the petition for certiorari from this Court is premature and should be dismissed on the authority of First National Bank v. Gibbs, 78 Fla. 118, 82 Sou. Rep. 618; Holmberg v. Toomer, 78 Fla. 116, 82 Sou. Rep. 620; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. City of Thomasville, 100 Fla. 748, 130 Sou. Rep. 7; Rifas v. Gross, 106 Fla. 708, 143 Sou. Rep. 600.

Petition for certiorari dismissed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
State/Territory FY2023 	 	 	 Election Security Allocation

Alabama $1,067,681

Alaska $1,000,000

American Samoa $200,000

Arizona $1,355,000

Arkansas $1,000,000

California $5,826,224

Colorado $1,172,438

Connecticut $1,000,000

Delaware $1,000,000

District of Columbia $1,000,000

Florida $3,441,134

Georgia $1,828,609

Guam $200,000

Hawaii $1,000,000

Idaho $1,000,000

Illinois $2,143,228

Indiana $1,293,215

Iowa $1,000,000

Kansas $1,000,000

Kentucky $1,000,000

Louisiana $1,006,388

Maine $1,000,000

Maryland $1,226,483

Massachusetts $1,376,528

Michigan $1,774,556

Minnesota $1,151,122

Mississippi $1,000,000

Missouri $1,219,482

Montana $1,000,000

Nebraska $1,000,000

Nevada $1,000,000

New Hampshire $1,000,000

New Jersey $1,662,570

New Mexico $1,000,000

New York $3,219,900

North Carolina $1,817,084

North Dakota $1,000,000

Northern Mariana Islands $200,000

Ohio $2,003,193

Oklahoma $1,000,000

Oregon $1,000,000

Pennsylvania $2,205,840

Puerto Rico $556,850

Rhode Island $1,000,000

South Carolina $1,084,886

South Dakota $1,000,000

Tennessee $1,327,148

Texas $4,241,736

U. S. Virgin Islands $200,000

Utah $1,000,000

Vermont $1,000,000

Virginia $1,567,743

Washington $1,440,359

West Virginia $1,000,000

Wisconsin $1,190,603

Wyoming $1,000,000 

TOTAL $75,000,000
No. 11-9294.

#### Broadnax *v.*Texas.

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.
# Section IV

# Section V

# Section V.B.(1)

# Section V.B.(2)

# Section V.B.(3)

# Appeals

# Processing Data

# Costs and Fees

# Subsection Specific Activity

# Backlogs

# Consultations

# Comparison Data
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0364 ☐ These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-SW-041-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: ☒ FRAN ☐ SNPRM

☒ No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? 

If yes, list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the 

previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point 

for guidance. Latest Revision.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: Choose one.

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): Click here to enter text.

What change to the AD action is requested? Click here to enter text.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Click here to enter text.

Do we agree? Yes/No

If YES, we agree because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with Insert text because Insert justification We disagree with

Insert text because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If NO, we don’t agree because Insert our rationale

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: Choose one.

If other, explain: Click here to enter text.

Commenter(s): Click here to enter text.

What change to the AD action is requested? Click here to enter text.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Click here to enter text.

Do we agree? Yes/No 
Page 2 of 3

If YES, we agree because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with Insert text because Insert justification We disagree with 

Insert text because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If NO, we don’t agree because Insert our rationale

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1939

DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. KELDA S. DAVIS; DURHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT; DURHAM ’ S FAMILY COURT; JUDGE D. WALKER; DURHAM COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY; CAPTAIN BARNES; POLICE CHIEF CERLYN DAVIS; CLARENCE BIRKHEAD; HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTOR, City Hall , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Th omas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 00008

- TDS

- LPA )

Submitted : December 16, 2021 Decided: December 17, 2021

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges , and KEENAN , Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Derrick Michael Allen, Sr. , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derrick Michael Allen, Sr. , appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judg e and dismissing Allen ’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Allen
v. Davis , No. 1:21

- cv - 00008

- TDS

- LPA (M.D .N.C. Aug. 18, 2021) . 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.
AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andres REYES-QUINTERO, a.k.a. Andres Reyes-Quintana, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50095

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 21, 2018

Stacey H. Sullivan, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Ajay Krishnamur-thy, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Marks, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM **

Andres Reyes-Quintero appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Reyes-Quintero contends that the district court procedurally erred by misinterpreting U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c), improperly varying under *Kimbrough v. United States,*552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), and failing to both calculate the Guidelines range for and explain why it selected a high-end term of supervised release. We review for plain error, *United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010); and conclude there is none. The district court properly applied U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 when it determined, based on Reyes-Quintero’s particular circumstances, that a term of supervised release would provide an added measure of deterrence. *See*U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5; *United States v. Castro-Verdugo,*750 F.3d 1065, 1072 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, we do not reach Reyes-Quintero’s arguments that the court improperly relied on *Kimbrough*to reject the Guidelines’ instruction regarding the “ordinary” case involving a deportable alien.

Moreover, the record reflects that the district court was aware of the applicable supervised release Guidelines range, which was calculated correctly in the presentence report, and the court’s reasons for select*709ing a high-end term are apparent from the record. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (adequate explanation may be inferred from the record as a whole). Reyes-Quinte-ro has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the district court explicitly calculated the Guidelines range or provided a more thorough explanation for the three-year term. *See United States v. Dallman, 5*33 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA) CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER
ended june 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                               3,928
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        2,232
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           (95)
<INVENTORY>                                                          5,536
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    12,322
<PP&E>                                                               4,731
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      (1,711)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      15,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                2,482
<BONDS>                                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                               133
<OTHER-SE>                                                          11,622
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                        15,392
<SALES>                                                              3,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     3,385
<CGS>                                                                1,424
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        2,718
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       (30)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                      53
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        644
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            39
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    605
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           605
<EPS-BASIC>                                                           0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0.04



</TABLE>
# C_2021148EN.01001802.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/18

---

Action brought on 19 January 2021 — KF v EIB

(Case T-37/21)

(2021/C 148/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KF (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision dated 13 October 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision dated 13 October 2020;

| — | grant compensation for the moral prejudice suffered; and |
| --- | --- |

—

grant compensation for the moral prejudice suffered; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 8 (1), Article 46 (1) and Article 51 (1) of the defendant’s Pension Scheme Regulations and a manifest error of appreciation of the legal concept of invalidity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 8 (1), Article 46 (1) and Article 51 (1) of the defendant’s Pension Scheme Regulations and a manifest error of appreciation of the legal concept of invalidity.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of impartiality by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of impartiality by the defendant.

---