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

American Oversight 

DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD, STOP 6201 

FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-620 I 

March 10, 2022 

1030 15th Street NW, Suite B255 

Washington, DC 20005 

Re: FOIA Case No.: 21-005 

Dear Ms. Monahan: 

This is our final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request perfected 

on October 15, 2020, and assigned FOIA case number 21-005 by the Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency (DTRA). You requested all records reflecting the tenns and/or conditions of contract(s), 

amendment(s), memorandum of understanding(s), or other written agreement(s) between (a) 

Advanced Technology International, Inc. (ATI) and (b) entities regarding the development of 

coronavirus vaccines or therapeutics. 

No records responsive to your request were identified during a thorough search of agency 

files and electronic records. The Department has no contracts, agreements, grants, etc. with any 

of the companies you listed. No fees are due as the assessable costs total $25.00 or less. 

Determinations on behalf ofDTRA were made by the Initial Denial Authority (IDA), Mr. 

Earl E. Washington, Jr., Chief, Records Management, FOIA, and Privacy Act Division, 

Infonnation Management and Technology Directorate. If you consider this decision to be an 

adverse determination, you may file a written appeal that is postmarked no later than 90 calendar 

days after the date of this letter to the Deputy Director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 

Infonnation Management and Technology Directorate, ATTN: FOWPA Office, 8725 John J. 

Kingman Road, MSC 6201, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060. The appeal should reference the 

FOIA/Privacy Act case number, contain a concise statement of the grounds upon which the 

appeal is brought, and a description of the relief sought. A copy of this letter should also 

accompany your appeal. Both the envelope and your letter should clearly identify that a Freedom 

of Infonnation Act and/or a Privacy Act Appeal is being made. 
Should you have additional questions or concerns regarding this case, you may seek 

dispute resolution services from the DTRA FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government 

Infonnation Services (OGIS). The DTRA FOIA Public Liaison, Mr. Mario Vizcarra, may be 

contacted by phone at (703)767-1792 or by email at dtrafoiaprivacy@mail.mil. The contact 

information for OGIS can be found at www.archives.gov/ogis. 

Sincerely, 

Eugene McGirt 

FOIAfPrivacy Act Specialist 

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Office
2018 EAVS Data Brief: New Mexico EAVS Jurisdictions 

33 

 Voter Registration 

Total Registered Voters, 

Nov. 20181 

1,261,639 

1 A1a of EAVS 

Registration Forms Received, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20182 

222,662 

2 A3a of EAVS 

New Voters Registered, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20183 

70,177 

3 A3b of EAVS 

Sources of Registration Forms4 

4 A4a-l of EAVS 

Mail/Fax/Email 41,261 

In-Person 30,876 

Online 40,208 

Motor Vehicle Office 93,348 

Public Assistance 

Office 16,665 

Disability Office 0 

Military Recruitment 

Office 0 

Other Non-NVRA 

Office 0 

Registration Drives 0 

Other Sources or Not 

Categorized 304 

 Voter Turnout 

Voters Participating by Mode5 

Other Mode 

3,272 

1% 

In-Person Early 

375,283 

54% 

In-Person E-Day 

254,378 

36% 

By Mail 

64,813 

9% 

5 In-person Election Day 

voters is F1b. By-mail voters 

is F1d+F1g. In-person early 

voters is F1f. Other mode is 

F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Total Turnout:6 697,681 

6 F1a of EAVS 

Provisional Voters:7 1,674 

7 F1e of EAVS 

UOCAVA Voters:8 1,598 



8 F1c of EAVS 

Election Technology 

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9 



33 33 

0 0 0 

DRE w/o DRE with Ballot Scanner Hand Electronic 

VVPAT VVPAT Marking Count Poll Book 

Device 

27 

9 F3a-d, F5a-F8a, and 

F11a of EAVS 

Election Policies 

✔ Has online voter registration10 

10 Q6 of Policy Survey 

✔ Has a form of same-day voter registration (SDR)11 

11 Q7 of Policy Survey 

Has all-mail elections statewide12 

Has all-mail elections in certain jurisdictions12 

12 Q9a of Policy Survey 

Allows voters to register as permanent absentee 

voters13 

13 Q10 of Policy Survey Requires excuse for by-mail voting14 

Requires excuse for in-person early or in-person 14 Q8 of Policy Survey 

absentee voting15 15 Q12a of Policy Survey 

✔ Uses vote centers16 16 Q13 of Policy Survey 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at 

www.eac.gov. 

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

are shown as zeroes.
Submitted January 30;

portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $60 “Mandatory State Amt” reversed, otherwise affirmed April 5;

petition for review denied June 29, 2017 (361 Or 645)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*MYYONNA MICHELLE HODGES, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Clackamas County Circuit Court

CR1401866; A160013

391 P3d 993

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

*666PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for first-degree theft. Among other terms, the judgment imposed $60 on defendant’s conviction as a “Mandatory State Amt.” We write only to address the court’s imposition of the $60 mandatory state amount and reject defendant’s other assignment of error without written discussion.

As to the “Mandatory State Amt,” defendant argues that the trial court erred because no statute authorized the trial court to impose that monetary award against her. The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing that amount. We agree and accept the state’s concession. *See State v. Lindemann,*272 Or App 780, 358 P3d 328, *rev den,*358 Or 248 (2015) (accepting state concession that imposition of $60 mandatory state amount was in error because there is no statutory authority to impose that monetary award). Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment that imposes the $60 mandatory state amount on defendant’s conviction.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $60 “Mandatory State Amt” reversed; otherwise affirmed.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8543 

To require the Secretary of Energy to establish a program to provide grants 

to improve power lines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 6, 2020 

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Energy to establish a program 

to provide grants to improve power lines. 

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 ‘‘Power Line Resiliency 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. POWER LINE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM. 

7 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 1 year after 

8 the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary of En9 ergy shall establish a program to provide grants to electric 

10 utilities to carry out eligible activities. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8543 IH

1 (b) GRANTS.— 

2 (1) APPLICATION.—To apply for a grant pro3 vided under this section, an electric utility shall sub4 mit to the Secretary of Energy an application at 

5 such time, in such manner, and containing such in6 formation as the Secretary of Energy may require. 

7 (2) SELECTION.—The Secretary of Energy 

8 shall provide grants under this section— 

9 (A) on a competitive basis; and 

10 (B) to geographically diverse electric utili11 ties. 

12 (3) PRIORITY.—The Secretary of Energy shall 

13 prioritize providing a grant under this section to an 

14 electric utility that sells electricity in an area that 

15 has a history of extreme weather events. 

16 (c) SUNSET.—The program established under sub17 section (a) shall terminate on the date that is 5 years after 

18 the date of enactment of this Act. 

19 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

20 (1) ELECTRIC UTILITY.—The term ‘‘electric 

21 utility’’ has the meaning given such term in section 

22 3(22) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

23 796(22)). 

24 (2) ELIGIBLE ACTIVITY.— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8543 IH

1 (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘eligible ac2 tivity’’ means an activity that— 

3 (i) is designed to improve the per4 formance or efficiency of a power line; 

5 (ii) makes a power line more resilient 

6 to an extreme weather event; or 

7 (iii) otherwise ensures that an end8 user has access to electricity during an ex9 treme weather event. 

10 (B) INCLUDES.—The term ‘‘eligible activ11 ity’’ includes— 

12 (i) burying a power line; 

13 (ii) hardening a power line; and 

14 (iii) if burying a power line is not fea15 sible, providing a generator to a household 

16 that is located in a remote area. 

17 (3) EXTREME WEATHER EVENT.—The term 

18 ‘‘extreme weather event’’ means an historically rare 

19 or severe natural disaster, including a heat wave, 

20 drought, flood, tornado, and hurricane. 

21 (4) POWER LINE.—The term ‘‘power line’’ in22 cludes distribution lines and transmission lines. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8660 

To direct the Secretary of Labor to modify regulations to allow the use 

of performance benchmarks in the case of designated investment alternatives, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 23, 2020 

Mr. EVANS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Labor to modify regulations to 

allow the use of performance benchmarks in the case 

of designated investment alternatives, 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. PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS FOR ASSET AL4 LOCATION FUNDS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 6 months after the 

6 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor 

7 (or the Secretary’s delegate) shall modify the regulations 

8 under section 404 of the Employee Retirement Income SeVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:41 Nov 06, 2020 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8660.IH H8660

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8660 IH

1 curity Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1104) to provide that, in 

2 the case of a designated investment alternative which con3 tains a mix of asset classes, a plan administrator may, 

4 but is not required to, use a benchmark which is a blend 

5 of different broad-based securities market indices if— 

6 (1) the blend is reasonably representative of the 

7 asset class holdings of the designated investment al8 ternative; 

9 (2) for purposes of determining the blend’s re10 turns for 1-, 5-, and 10-calendar-year periods (or for 

11 the life of the alternative, if shorter), the blend is 

12 modified at least once per year to reflect changes in 

13 the asset class holdings of the designated investment 

14 alternative; 

15 (3) the blend is furnished to participants and 

16 beneficiaries in a manner that is reasonably designed 

17 to be understandable and helpful; and 

18 (4) each securities market index which is used 

19 for an associated asset class would separately satisfy 

20 the requirements of such regulations for such asset 

21 class. 

22 (b) STUDY.—Not later than December 31, 2021, the 

23 Secretary of Labor (or the Secretary’s delegate) shall de24 liver a report to the Committees on Ways and Means and 

25 Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8660 IH

1 the Committees on Finance and Health, Education, 

2 Labor, and Pensions of the Senate regarding the effective3 ness of the benchmarking requirements under section 

4 2550.404a–5 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

People of MI v Rufus Rudie Thomas 

Docket No. 337760 

LC No. 16-005511 -01-FC 

Stephen L. Borrello 

Presiding Judge 

Michael J. Kelly 

Mark T. Boonstra 

Judges 

The Court orders that the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED, and this Court's 

opinion issued July 26, 2018 is hereby VACA TED. A new opinion is attached to this order. 

tru pv . ntcr d and rtifii.:d b. Jcr me . ZLmmcr Jr. hi r lcrk. on 

AUG 3 0 2018 

Dat
# C_2022424EN.01001801.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de Prud’hommes d’Agen (France) lodged on 21 April 2022 — NW v Keolis Agen SARL

(Case C-275/22)

(2022/C 424/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil de Prud’hommes d’Agen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NW

Defendant: Keolis Agen SARL

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) be interpreted as being directly applicable in relations between a private transport operator, with a single public service delegation, and its employees, in the light, in particular, of the liberalisation of the rail passenger transport sector? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) be interpreted as being directly applicable in relations between a private transport operator, with a single public service delegation, and its employees, in the light, in particular, of the liberalisation of the rail passenger transport sector?

| 2. | What is a reasonable carry-over period in respect of the acquired entitlement to four weeks’ paid annual leave within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, in so far as the time during which annual leave may be accrued is one year? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is a reasonable carry-over period in respect of the acquired entitlement to four weeks’ paid annual leave within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, in so far as the time during which annual leave may be accrued is one year?

| 3. | Is the application of an unlimited carry-over period in the absence of a provision of national law, a regulation or convention governing that period contrary to Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the application of an unlimited carry-over period in the absence of a provision of national law, a regulation or convention governing that period contrary to Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-24-1997
<CASH>                                          24,483
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,897
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     31,361
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,205
<PP&E>                                          66,757
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,814
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 128,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,312
<BONDS>                                            699
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           104
<OTHER-SE>                                     110,556
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   128,389
<SALES>                                         27,748
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,748
<CGS>                                           14,297
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  93
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,602)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,225)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,377)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,377)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.25)
        



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Saul Antonio FLORES-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-5088

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed February 16, 2018

(D.C. Nos. 4:17-CV-00383-JHP-MJX and 4:12-CR-00041-JHP-3) (N.D. Oklahoma)

Leena Alam, Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Saul Antonio Flores-Lopez, Pro Sé

Before MATHESON, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Scott M. Matheson, Jr., Circuit Judge

The district court denied Oklahoma state prisoner Saul Antonio Flores-Lopez’s application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the ground that it was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).1 To appeal that ruling, Mr. Flores-Lopez must obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring a COA to appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus, proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court”). To obtain a COA, he must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *accord Dulworth v. Jones,*496 F.3d 1133, 1137 (10th Cir. 2007).

Mr. Flores-Lopez does not address timeliness in his brief requesting a COA. Although we liberally construe Mr. Flores-Lopez’s filings because he represents himself, we do not act as his advocate. *Yang v. Archuleta,*525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). Without an argument from Mr. Flores-Lopez as to why reasonable jurists *825would debate the district court’s ruling, we must deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

*

This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1

. In light of this court’s recent decision in *United States v. Higley,*No. 17-1111 (10th Cir. Sep. 29, 2017), this matter was abated and remanded on a limited basis for the district court to consider whether to issue a COA. The district court denied a COA on February 13, 2018, and we lifted our abatement.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DELFON BLAIR,

Appellant,

v.

WEST PALM BEACH COURTHOUSE,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2488

[March 10, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Gerald Joseph Curley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502019CA015927XXXMB.

Delfon Blair, Doral, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

DAMOORGIAN, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2015 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2015-1, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





|   |                                                                                                              
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.




|   |                                                                                      
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning onMarch 1, 2016and ending onFebruary 28, 2017and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.







Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 19th day of May, 2017 .





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Enrique Mayor-Mora


Enrique Mayor-Mora


Vice President and Treasurer
No. 11-10169.

#### Crosby *v.*Menzena et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10431.

#### Williams *v.*Wetzel, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.