alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1314. Certification of registration

Certificates of registration shall be issued in the name of the United States under the seal of the Office of the Administrator and shall be recorded in the official records of the Office. The certificate shall state the name of the useful article, the date of filing of the application, the date of registration, and the date the design was made public, if earlier than the date of filing of the application, and shall contain a reproduction of the drawing or other pictorial representation of the design. If a description of the salient features of the design appears in the application, the description shall also appear in the certificate. A certificate of registration shall be admitted in any court as prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the certificate.

(Added Pub. L. 105–304, title V, §502, Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2912.)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 217

 204

 192

 189

 194

 201

 203

 204

 250

 249

 250

 342

 335

 346

 362

 370

 373

 388

 374

 352

 389

 369

 355

 318

 368

 393

 407

 299

 291

 324

 306

 183

 182

 177

 166

 170

 168

 169

 177

 200

 221

 197

 272

 280

 313

 327

 325

 332

 352

 348

 321

 325

 338

 307

 260

 222

 344

 313

 277

 278

 279

 250

 198

 190

 185

 179

 182

 185

 187

 190

 229

 235

 212

 317

 313

 332

 340

 344

 355

 369

 362

 341

 352

 349

 325

 297

 274

 361

 367

 284

 284

 300

 275

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 13, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 138

 133

 130

 127

 128

 130

 132

 133

 158

 161

 147

 212

 209

 221

 226

 229

 235

 244

 240

 227

 234

 232

 217

 200

 185

 239

 243

 192

 192

 201

 186

TOTAL 8,713

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
#### § 101.103 Exceptions to initial or recommended decisions.

Within 20 days after the mailing of an initial or recommended decision, any party may file exceptions to the decision, stating reasons therefor, with the reviewing authority. Any other party may file a response thereto within 30 days after the mailing of the decision. Upon the filing of such exceptions, the reviewing authority shall review the decision and issue its own decision thereon.
Opinion issued May 9, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-13-00194-CR

NO. 01-13-00195-CR

NO. 01-13-00196-CR ____________

JOSHUA WAYNE HARGRAVES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 10th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 11CR0683, 11CR0684, & 11CR0685

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement with the State, appellant Joshua Wayne 

Hargraves pleaded guilty to two felony offenses of aggravated sexual assault of a 

disabled person and one felony offense of indecency with a child by contact. See 

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11 (West 2011), § 22.021 (West Supp. 2012). The 
2

plea-bargain in these cases entailed the State’s agreement to abandon an 

enhancement paragraph for each offense in exchange for appellant’s pleas of guilty. 

See Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The trial 

court accepted appellant’s pleas and found appellant guilty of the offenses. The 

trial court then sentenced appellant to confinement for 50 years in the Institutional 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for each offense of 

aggravated sexual assault and for 20 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice for the offense of indecency with a child by contact, 

and ordered that the sentences run concurrently. Appellant has filed notices of 

appeal. We dismiss the appeals.

In a plea-bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were 

raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or after getting the trial 

court’s permission to appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). A charge-bargain, like 

that entered into by the appellant and the State in these cases, where the defendant

agrees to plead guilty in exchange for the prosecutor bringing lesser charges or 

agreeing to remove enhancements, is a plea-bargain under Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 25.2. See Shankle, 119 S.W.3d at 813–14. An appeal must be dismissed 

if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been 

made part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
3

Here, the trial court’s certifications are included in the record on appeal. See

id. The trial court’s certifications indicate that these are plea bargain cases and the 

appellant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record 

supports that appellant has no right of appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 

615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must 

dismiss these appeals. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App.

2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an 

appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must 

dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the 

appeal.”).

Accordingly, we reinstate and dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. 

We dismiss all pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 12

                    CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC, LLC
      [(AN INDIRECT] WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC.)

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                   YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                  -----------------------------------------------------
                                                      2002         2001      2000      1999      1998
                                                  ----------     --------  --------  --------  --------
<S>                                               <C>            <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Income from continuing operations                 $  563,555     $445,955  $490,987  $277,240  $244,838
Income taxes for continuing operations               294,554      227,811   233,367   142,786   159,126
Capitalized Interest                                  (3,672)      (4,581)   (4,011)   (7,632)   (2,775)
                                                  ----------     --------  --------  --------  --------
                                                     854,437      669,185   720,343   412,394   401,189
                                                  ----------     --------  --------  --------  --------

Fixed charges, as defined:
 Interest expense                                    260,121      233,344   230,385   196,791   229,505
 Capitalized Interest                                  3,672        4,581     4,011     7,632     2,775
 Interest component of rentals charged to
   operating expense                                   1,654        1,686     1,060       590       203
                                                  ----------     --------  --------  --------  --------
 Total fixed charges                                 265,447      239,611   235,456   205,013   232,483
                                                  ----------     --------  --------  --------  --------
Earnings, as defined                              $1,119,884     $908,796  $955,799  $617,407  $633,672
                                                  ==========     ========  ========  ========  ========
Ratios of earnings to fixed charges                     4.22         3.79      4.06      3.01      2.73
                                                  ==========     ========  ========  ========  ========
</Table>
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Richard Carr, Appellant, against William Hunt, as Warden of Attica State Prison, Respondent.

Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.
Phone Log for Atrazine Special Review Docket Page 1 of 1

January 5 , 20 1 1 , afternoon

Melanie Biscoe and Anne Overstreet of EPA/OPP calle d Dan Campbell of Syngenta. During the conversation, Dan Campbell confirmed tha t Syngenta will be able to provide Community Water System data for the Atrazine Monito ring Program and the Simazine Monitoring Program in spreadsheet format by the end of January 2011.

Phone Log prepared by – Melanie Biscoe
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 2315

BRUCE T. ADKINS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMOR E , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 01810

- CCB )

Submitted : February 22, 2024 Decided: February 26, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion

.
Bruce T. Adkins , Appellant Pro Se

. Michael Patrick Redmond , BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT , Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2315 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Bruce T. Adkins appeals the district court’s order s dismissing his due process and state law claims against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and denying his motion
to vacate . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendant

. Adkins v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore , No. 1:21

- cv - 01810

- CCB (D. Md. filed Aug. 31, 2022 & entered Sept. 1, 2022)

. The district court retained jurisdiction to rule on Adkins’ motion to vacate, filed within 28 days of judgment and construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, see MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines , 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (construing motion seeking reconsideration as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion if filed within 28 days of district court’s final order), even though Adkins’ appeal was pending. See Wolfe v. Clarke , 718 F.3d 277, 281 n.3 (4th Cir. 2013) (explaining that, although “a duly filed no tice of appeal deprives a district court of jurisdiction over all issues relating to the subject matter thereof,” the court may “proceed as to matters in aid of the appeal” (internal quotation marks omitted))

. However, b ecause Adkins did not file an amended notice of appeal following the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate, he failed to perfect an appeal as to that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)( 4 )(B)(ii)

. W e therefore dismiss the appeal as that order to the extent that Adkins intended t o appeal it

. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2315 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 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 IN PART , DISMISSED IN PART USCA4 Appeal: 22-2315 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean TDS

1 444 410 427 280

2 430 420 424 278

3 494 428 452 295

4 533 496 523 339

5 523 505 513 333

6 507 489 498 324

7 493 463 480 313

8 483 427 465 303

9 489 423 473 308

10 489 420 463 302

11 523 419 456 298

12 590 520 559 361

13 639 532 584 377

14 649 602 628 404

15 630 613 619 399

16 618 576 608 392

17 605 566 590 381

18 618 520 565 365

19 598 526 570 368

20 616 513 574 371

21 632 572 608 392

22 642 611 627 403

23 646 600 629 405

24 647 608 633 407

25 644 600 631 406

26 646 612 638 410

27 646 644 645 415

28 645 640 644 414

29 641 638 640 412

30 641 636 639 411

31 640 637 639 411

Total 17444

COMMENT(S):

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Delta Mendota Canal At Check 20 

Period: March 2023 Run Date: 4/7/2023
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of LegalPlay Entertainment Inc. on form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Page, Director 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:

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

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



November 21, 2005                           /s/ John Page
----------------------------------          ------------------------------------
(Date)                                      John Page
                                            Director / Treasurer
g:\blm\buttermp\ams\FinalFigures\Fig2-12_FireCondCls1117.mxd 

Cascade County 

Lewis and Clark County 

Meagher County 

Powell County Helena 

East Helena 

£¤12 

Jefferson County 

§ ̈¦15 

£¤

Broadwater County 

12 Townsend 

Boulder 

Anaconda 

§ ̈¦90 

Deerlodge County 

£¤287 

Butte 

I low departure moderate grass/shrub urban Fire Condition Classes 

moderate departure agriculture water Butte Field Office - EIS 0 Miles 10 high departure rock/barren snow/ice RMP Planning Area, Montana No warranty is made by the Bureau of Map

Land Management (BLM) for use of Location
 FIGURE 2-12a 

data for purposes not intended by BLM.
### §3669. Conveyances carrying liquor

Any conveyance, whether used by the owner or another in introducing or attempting to introduce intoxicants into the Indian country, or into other places where the introduction is prohibited by treaty or enactment of Congress, shall be subject to seizure, libel, and forfeiture.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 841, §3618; renumbered §3669, Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §212(a)(1), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1987.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on section 247 of title 25, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Indians (Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 146, §1, 39 Stat. 970).

Words "Automobiles or any other vehicles or" at beginning of section were omitted, and "any conveyance" substituted to remove possible ambiguity as to scope of section.

Words at conclusion of section "provided in section 246 of this title" added nothing and were therefore omitted. (See also rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.)

Minor changes were made in arrangement and phraseology.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 76815 / December 31, 2015

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-16017

____________________________________

 :

In the Matter of :

 :

LINKBROKERS :

DERIVATIVES LLC : EXTENSION ORDER

:

:

Respondent. :

____________________________________:

The Division of Enforcement (“Division”) has requested an extension of time 

until March 15, 2016 to submit a proposed Plan of Distribution under Rule 1101(a) of 

the Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans, 17 CFR 201.1101(a).

On August 14, 2014, the Commission issued an Order Instituting 

Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Pursuant to Sections 15(b) and 21C 

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial 

Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”) against Linkbrokers Derivatives 

LLC (“Linkbrokers” or “Respondent”).1 The Order required Respondent to pay 

disgorgement of $14,000,000 to the Commission within 14 days of the entry of the 

Order. 

On November 20, 2014, the Commission granted the Division’s request for an 

extension until June 30, 2015 to submit a proposed plan of distribution. On July 1, 

2015, the Commission granted the Division’s request for a second extension until 

 

1 Exchange Act Release No. 72846 (Aug. 14, 2014).
December 31, 2015 to appoint a fund administrator and set an appropriate bond 

amount for the fund administrator. Once the bond administrator was chosen a 

proposed plan of distribution was developed in conjunction with the selected fund 

administrator. The Division now requests a third extension. In its request for an 

extension of time, the Division states that it requires additional time to finalize the 

proposed plan of distribution.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 

Division’s request for an extension of time until March 15, 2016 to submit a proposed 

Plan of Distribution is granted.

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority. 

Brent J. Fields

Secretary
###### Editorial Note on Part 1246

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1246 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and 68 FR 10359, Mar. 5, 2003.

#### § 1246.8 [Reserved]
### §419. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Feb. 15, 1901, ch. 372, 31 Stat. 790, which related to rights-of-way for electrical plants, was transferred to section 79 of this title and subsequently omitted from the Code. Act Feb. 15, 1901, ch. 372, is also classified to section 959 of Title 43, Public Lands.
#### Marie Gardenhire Myers, Respondent, v. Walter Perry Myers, Appellant.

Motion for stay granted, on condition that defendant file an undertaking in the sum of one thousand dollars, continue the present voluntary payment of fifteen dollars per week, pay all arrears thereof, if any, and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise, motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present —Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Stapleton, JJ. Order to be settled before the presiding j ustice.
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 American Racing Capital,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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  operation of the
Company.

Date:    January 24, 2006                 By:      /s/ Davy Jones
                                                   -----------------------------
                                          Name:    Davy Jones
                                          Title:   Chief Executive Officer

Date:    January 24, 2006                 By:      /s/ Robert Koveleski
                                                   -----------------------------
                                          Name:    Robert Koveleski
                                          Title:   Principal Financial Officer

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or
other  document  authentications,   acknowledging,  or  otherwise  adopting  the
signature  that  appears in typed form  within  the  electronic  version of this
written statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to American Racing
Capital,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by  American  Racing  Capital,  Inc.  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 annual report of Senetek PLC, (the Company) on Form 10-K for the annual
period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William F. OKelly, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

Date: April 15, 2008



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|/s/    William F. OKelly                                                
|William F. OKelly Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)