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

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 21 (Monday, February 3, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02202]

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

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Sunshine Act notice; notice of public meeting agenda.

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

SUMMARY: Public Meeting: U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

DATES: Wednesday, February 19, 1 p.m.-4 p.m. ET.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in person at the Election 
Assistance Commission hearing room at 633 3rd St. NW, Washington, DC 
20001. The meeting is open to the public and will be livestreamed on 
the U.S. Election Assistance Commission YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpN6i0g2rlF4ITWhwvBwwZw.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Muthig, Telephone: (202) 897-
9285, Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose: In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act 
(Sunshine Act), Public Law 94-409, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552b), the U.S. 
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) will conduct an open meeting on 
updates from the EAC's Election Supporting Technology Evaluation 
Program (ESTEP) and recent pilot efforts from the Field Services 
Program.
    Agenda: During the meeting, the EAC's Commissioners will lead 
discussions with agency staff on updates. Other panelists will include 
election officials and election technology vendors.
    The full agenda will be posted in advance on the EAC website: 
https://www.eac.gov.
    The EAC will accept written comments and questions from members of 
the public. If you would like to participate, please email 
[email protected] with your full name and question or comment no 
later than 9 a.m. ET on February 19, 2025.
    Background: Under the authority of the Help America Vote Act of 
2002 (HAVA), the EAC created the Election Supporting Technology 
Evaluation Program (ESTEP) to establish requirements and guidelines 
specific to election technologies that are not covered under the 
Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), which includes electronic 
poll books, electronic ballot delivery systems, election night 
reporting systems, and voter registration systems.
    As outlined in HAVA, the Field Services Program is derived from the 
EAC Testing and Certification division's Quality Monitoring Program, 
where the agency is positioned to assist states and local jurisdictions 
in the verification of EAC certified fielded systems on an ongoing 
basis. To best accomplish this, the program has a deployable, full-time 
staff of subject matter experts to proactively provide a combination of 
virtual and onsite services and training to help officials.
    Status: This meeting will be open to the public.

Camden Kelliher,
General Counsel, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 2025-02202 Filed 1-30-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4810-71-P
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

STEVEN GENE MAYE, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2466

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 26, 2018. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; Michael F. Andrews, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, 

Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and C. Todd Chapman, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, VILLANTI, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Office of the Clerk

 United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California

San Francisco Division 

Edward J. Emmons, Elizabeth Lucero,

Clerk of Court Division Office Manager

450 Golden Gate Ave., 18th Floor 450 Golden Gate Ave., 18th Floor

Mail Box 36099 Mail Box 36099

San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone: (415) 268-2300 Phone: (415) 268-2312

January 5, 2017

United State District Court

Phillip Burton Federal Building

& United States Courthouse

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

 

Re: Transmittal of Notice of Appeal and Notice of Election for Appeal to be forwarded to a

True Article III United States District Court: Frank A. Mardeusz; Bankruptcy Case No.:

16-31204-DM; Honorable Dennis Montali

Dear Clerk: 

We are electronically transmitting the following documents below to your court for the above

referenced matters:

• Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay filed on December 16, 2016

(dkt. #15)

• Notice of Appeal and Notice of Election for Appeal to be forwarded to a True Article III

United States District Court filed on December 30, 2016 (dkt. #20)

• Certificate of Service filed by Appellant Frank A. Mardeusz filed on December 30, 2016

(dkt. #21)

• Court Certificate of Mailing filed on January 5, 2016 (dkt. #23)

• Court Docket Sheet

If you have any questions, please call me at (415) 268-2373.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Emmons

Clerk of Court

/s/

Deputy Clerk, DaWana Chambers 

Case: 16-31204 Doc# 24 Filed: 01/05/17 Entered: 01/05/17 11:08:01 Page 1 of 1

Case 3:17-cv-00063-CRB Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 1
David PRIESTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3723

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 16, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### In re: Waymare BILLUPS, Petitioner.

No. 04-6322.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 6, 2004.

Waymare Billups, Petitioner pro se.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Waymare Billups has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking removal of a detainer filed by the State of Maryland. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re United Steelworkers,*595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). Further, mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted. *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987).

Billups has not shown that the relief sought is not available by other means. Accordingly, although we grant Billups’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and deny Billups’s motions for appointment of counsel and to dismiss his detain-er. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Quarterly Report of Optionable, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter  ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Marc-Andre Boisseau Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ Marc-Andre Boisseau


Marc-Andre
Boisseau


Chief
Financial Officer
D.B. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2170394

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 6, 2018

Dismissed.
Rickey CRITTENDON v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CR-16-1343

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reversed and remanded.
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 BankFinancial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, F. Morgan Gasior, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                                                             |  |                   
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------
|/s/ F. MORGAN GASIOR                                         |  | Dated: May 8, 2007
|F. Morgan Gasior                                             |  |                   
|Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |  |                   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BankFinancial
Corporation and will be retained by BankFinancial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



38
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Edward TUBBS, also known as Michael Tubbs, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-51163.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 12, 2004.

Mark Randolph Stelmach, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorneys, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Stanley Lee Schwieger, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Michael Tubbs was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. Tubbs appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court clearly erred in including the weight of the “bones” in the drug quantity attributed to him. Because bones, a byproduct of the methamphetamine manufacturing process, can be injected by users without separating the methamphetamine, bones constitutes a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine for purposes of the sentencing guidelines. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.1). The district court did not clearly err in including the entire weight of the bones in the drug quantity attributed to Tubbs. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), comment. (n.A); *United States v. Ramirez,*271 F.3d 611, 612 (5th Cir.2001).

Tubbs also argues that the district court erred in denying his request for appointment of an expert chemist to testify at the sentencing hearing. Tubbs failed to make the necessary showing to obtain appointment of an expert witness. *See United States v. Patterson,*724 F.2d 1128, 1130 (5th Cir.1984); *see also Moore v. Johnson,*225 F.3d 495, 503 (5th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
FRENCH RIVIERA IMPORTS, INC., Appellant, v. WOODFIELD REGENCY, INC., and Regency Court (Woodfield) Merchants Association, Inc., Appellees.

No. 4D18-2193

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 25, 2019]

Dennis S. Lefkowitz, Boca Raton, for appellant.

Michael L. Grant and Richard B. Warren of Warren & Grant, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee Woodfield Regency, Inc.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Conner, J., and Metzger, Elizabeth, Associate Judge, concur.
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 on Form 10-QSB of Optionable,  Inc. (the
"Company")  for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2005,  as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to the best of
the undersigned's knowledge and belief, 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 results of operations of the Company.


Date: November 7, 2005                           /s/ Kevin Cassidy
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Kevin Cassidy
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


  [A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Optionable, Inc. and will be retained by Optionable, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

July 16, 2014

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 13

‐ 1474

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v.

FAUSTINO ARRELLANO, Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 1:10

‐ cr

‐ 00802

‐ 3

Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge

.

O R D E R

The opinion of this court issued on July 2, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 21, third line from the bottom, “protected sweep” should be “protective sweep.”
Brian K. ALLEN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.:2D19-1439

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 14, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Damien GLIMPS v. STATE

CR-16-1108

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 11 - 00050 - CR

MORRIS CLAY MACKEY APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- App ellant Morris Clay Mackey entered open plea s of guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual assault

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22. 021 (West Supp. 2011). A jury found him guilty of each count pursuant to an instructed verdict and, after a trial on punishme nt, assessed his punishment at twenty

- seven years’ imprisonment for each count. T he trial court sentenced him accordingly , ordering

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

that the sentences run consecutive to Mackey’s previously

- entered sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment for a different of fense

. Mackey’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California 2 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. This court afforded Mackey the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has done so

. As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determ ine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motio n to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record , counsel’s brief , and Mackey’s pro

se brief . We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find n othing in the record that arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

2 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).3 PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, J.; L IVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: April 5, 2012
Weight Calibration across Packages

Stas Kolenikov

9/23/2019
Weight calibration

Deville & Sarndal (1992)

Last step in creating analysis weights in survey data files

Adjusting the weights so that they sum to known population

totals in different subgroups (age, sex, race, ethnicity, geography,

etc.)

Desirable to minimize changes from the input weights

(probability of selection, nonresponse adjustments, frame

integration, etc.)

·

·

·

2/18
Contenders

Stata

R

SAS

ipfraking (Kolenikov 2014, 2019)

svycal (official Stata)

survwgt (Winter 2002)

sreweight (Pacifico 2014)

·

·

·

·

· survey::calibrate() (Lumley 2010)

· rake_and_trim() (Izrael, Battaglia, Hoaglin, Frankel, Ball, 2017)

3/18
Out of scope

SUDAAN PROC WGTADJ, PROC WGTADJX

Stata ipfweight (Bergmann 2011)

R library(ReGenesees) (Zardetto 2015)

R library(ipfr) (Ward, Macfarlane 2019)

·

·

·

·

4/18
Expectations

Produce usable results

Provide weight diagnostics

Speed

Fool proof

·

·

·

·

5/18
Running example

6/18
Running example

CPS 2018 March ASEC data

estimate control totals based on 13353 adults in CA

calibrate 8403 adults in TX on

·

·

sex

age (14 categories)

race/ethnicity (6 categories)

education (5 categories)

HH income (9 categories)

nativity (3 categories)

marital status (6 categories)

own vs. rent

metro area of TX (23 categories)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7/18
Tasks and tests

1. Straight raking

2. Raking with divergent population control totals

3. Raking with bounded weight adjustment ratios [0.3,3]

4. Raking with bounded weight values (2nd and 98th percentile of

unrestricted distribution)

5. Linear calibration

6. Linear calibration with trimming

7. (Informative error expected) incorrect specification of control

totals

8/18
Performance summary

N: no documented functionality exists

W: issued reasonable warnings

F: failed with cryptic error message / no message

package TOT DIV REL ABS LIN LIN+TR time

ipfraking name +W + + + N 7.14 sec

svycal name/= F F N + + 0.18 sec

survwgt order NW N N N N 0.80 sec

sreweight order F F N + N 0.19 sec

calibrate name -W .. + + + 0.35 sec

rake_and_trim name+magic F -W + N N 61 sec

9/18
Stata ipfraking

10/18
Stata svycal

11/18
Stata survwgt

12/18
R survey::calibrate()

13/18
SAS rake

_and_trim()

14/18
SAS rake

_and_trim()

15/18
Weighttrimming≠ methodology

16/18
Misspecified controltotals

E: issued an error and stopped

!!!: did not issue an error – results highly suspect!

package Extra in pop Extra in data Wrong order

ipfraking E E

svycal E !!!

survwgt N/A N/A !!!

sreweight E E !!!

calibrate E E

rake_and_trim !?!? !!!

17/18
Thanks and out

Questions?

stas_kolenikov@abtassoc.com

@StatStas on Twitter

·

·

18/18
Jason C. LEMAY, DOC #102574, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3007

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification ofPrincipal Executive Officer

 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,

  As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Reef Global Energy IV, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Mauceli,principal executive officer of Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P., themanaging general partner of Reef Global Energy IV, L.P., certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Partnership.

 
| Date: May 20, 2008 | Reef Oil & Gas  Partners, L.P.        |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Managing General  Partner                      |
|                    |                                           |
|                    | By: Reef Oil &  Gas Partners, GP, LLC |
|                    |                                           |
|                    | /s/ Michael J. Mauceli                         |
|                    | Michael J. Mauceli                             |
|                    | Manager and Member                             |
|                    | (Principal Executive  Officer)                 |

 

 

Thiscertification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of § 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by § 906 has been providedto the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----