alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Measuring geothermal gradients in drill holes less than 60 feet deep, East Tintic district, Utah

By: T. S. LoveringH.D. Goode

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1172

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
(No. 74-CC-102

#### Kishwaukee Valley Medical Group (Edward J. Chereck, M.D.), Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed November 13, 1973.*

Kishwaukee Valley Medical Group, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          75,694
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      445
<ALLOWANCES>                                       205
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,562
<PP&E>                                          51,582
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,865
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,334
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,248
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,334
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,692
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               121,447
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   141
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (114,595)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (114,936)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.11)


</TABLE>
1 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont 

____________________ 

NO. 09-15-00062-CR 

____________________ 

IN RE MICHAEL WAYNE HANCOCK 

_______________________________________________________ ______________ 

 Original Proceeding 

________________________________________________________ _____________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Michael Wayne Hancock filed a petition for writ of mandamus, challenging 

the June 2014 judgments nunc pro tunc signed by the 75th District Court of Liberty 

County, Texas, in trial court case numbers CR28749 and CR28750. Hancock 

contends the judgments nunc pro tunc are void because the deletion of attorney’s 

fees from the judgments corrects an error of judicial reasoning.1

 To show 

                                                             1

 In a previous mandamus proceeding, Hancock argued the original 

judgments contained clerical errors that cited the wrong section of the Penal Code. 

On motion of the State and with the agreement of Hancock’s trial counsel, the trial 

court signed the judgments nunc pro tunc, correcting the Penal Code offense from 

section 22.11 to section 21.11(a)(1) and deleting the assessment of $4,325 in 

attorney’s fees. We denied mandamus relief because the judgments nunc pro tunc 
2 

entitlement to mandamus relief, a relator must establish that he demanded the 

performance of an act that the respondent had a legal duty to perform, and that the 

respondent refused to act. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). In his present mandamus petition, 

Hancock has not shown that he asked the trial court to reconsider its order granting 

the State’s motions and issue new judgments nunc pro tunc that assess the 

attorney’s fees contained in the original judgments. We deny the petition for writ 

of mandamus. 

 PETITION DENIED. 

 

 PER CURIAM 

Submitted on February 17, 2015 

Opinion Delivered February 18, 2015 

Do Not Publish 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

were appealable. See In re Hancock, No. 09-14-00223-CR, 2014 WL 3697024, at 

*1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont July 24, 2014, orig. proceeding).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 22, 2019

Order 

Clerk

November 22, 2019

160019 & (44)

BACK IN MOTION CHIROPRACTIC, DC,

PLLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 160019

v COA: 341886

Oakland CC: 17-002778-NF

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs. The 

motion to hold the case in abeyance is denied as moot.
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

 517

 549

 581

 580

 514

 512

 504

 495

 472

 497

 488

 479

 476

 437

 426

 502

 541

 561

 568

 543

 570

 554

 539

 538

 511

 484

 481

 475

 479

 502

 528

 243

 242

 250

 254

 261

 252

 255

 254

 259

 266

 271

 279

 289

 286

 289

 290

 290

 296

 304

 302

 294

 310

 314

 317

 327

 338

 345

 357

 359

 353

 349

 324

 328

 349

 347

 340

 322

 324

 331

 338

 350

 343

 345

 341

 340

 340

 351

 357

 377

 366

 363

 373

 397

 393

 394

 395

 388

 391

 391

 388

 398

 397

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

AUGUST 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 12, 2005

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 216

 219

 232

 230

 226

 215

 216

 221

 225

 232

 228

 229

 227

 226

 226

 233

 237

 249

 242

 240

 247

 261

 259

 259

 260

 256

 258

 258

 256

 262

 261

TOTAL 11,181

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
### §2338. Exclusive Federal jurisdiction

The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over an action brought under this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 102–572, title X, §1003(a)(4), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4524.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to any pending case or any cause of action arising on or after 4 years before Oct. 29, 1992, see section 1003(c) of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 2331 of this title.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
AR TEM PAKHOL,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-71959 Age n c y No. A201-910-367
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 8, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : LUC ER O, *** IKUTA, a nd VANDYKE, C irc uit Judge s. Arte m Pa khol se e ks re v i e w of a de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) dism issing his adm inistra tive a ppe a l of a n Im m igration Judge ’ s (IJ) 

# FIL ED DEC 13 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble C arlos F. Luc e ro, Unite d State s C i rc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.orde r de ny ing his re que st for a c ontinua nc e to obta in c ounse l, a

nd a ffirm i ng the IJ’ s de nia l of Pa

khol’ s a pplic a tions for a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. B oth pa rtie s re c o g niz e tha

t Pakhol’ s right to c ounse l c l a im m ay be a ffe c te d by inte rve ning c a s e la

w, se e Usubak

unov v . Garland

, No. 18-72974, 2021 W

L 5045740, a

t *5 (9th C ir. Nov. 1, 2021), a nd the re fore re q

ue st re m and to theB IA. W he re , a s he re , inte rve ning c a se la w m ay a ffe c t a n a g e n c y ’ s pre vious de c i sion, the prope r c ourse is to re m and to thea ge nc y for the “ the opportunity to a ddre ss the
m a tte r in the first insta

n c e .” IN S v . Orlando Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 17 (2002) (pe r
c uriam ). W e the re fore re

je c t Pakhol’ s re q

ue st to re m and to the B IA with dire c tions to orde r a ne w he aring. Se e Me

za-Vazque

z v . Garland

, 993 F.3d 726, 729 (9th C ir. 2021). B e c a

use we re m a

n d to the B IA to re c o nside r Pa khol’ s right to c ounse l
c la im in light of Usubak

unov , we do not a ddre ss Pa khol’ s a dditiona l c la im s on
a ppe a l. RE M ANDE D. 1

1 Ea c h pa rty will be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l
. 2
Roy M. Terry, Jr., VSB No. 17764

SANDS ANDERSON PC

P.O. Box 2188

Richmond, VA 23218-2188

Telephone: 804.648.1636

 Chapter 7 Trustee

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

In Re: CATHY MICKENS Case No. 19-31323-KLP

2621 Reba Court Chapter 7

Glen Allen, VA 23060

SSN: xxx-xx-2707

Debtor.

NOTICE OF MOTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Roy M. Terry, Jr., Chapter 7 Trustee, by counsel, has filed 

the Trustee’s Application to Retain BK Global Real Estate Services and Deborah Bacchus of My 

Dream Home Realty, Inc. to Procure Consented Public Sale and Memorandum in Support 

Thereof (the "Motion"). A copy of the Motion is attached hereto.

Your rights may be affected. You should read these papers carefully and discuss 

them with your attorney, if you have one. (If you do not have an attorney, you may wish to 

consult one.)

If you do not want the court to grant the relief sought in the Motion, or if you want the 

court to consider your views on the motion, then within fourteen (14) days from the date of 

service of this Notice, you or your attorney must:

1. File with the Court, at the applicable address shown below, a written 

response pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(H). If you mail your response to the 

court for filing, you must mail it early enough so that the court will receive it on or 

before the date stated above. 

Clerk’s Office

United States Bankruptcy Court

701 East Broad Street, Suite 4000

Richmond, Virginia 23219

You must also mail a copy to:

Robert Van Arsdale, Esquire

Office of the U.S. Trustee

701 East Broad Street, Suite 4304

Richmond, Virginia 23219

2. If you file such a timely written response, you must also attend a hearing that will 

be scheduled at a later date. You will receive separate notice of any such hearing.

Case 19-31323-KLP Doc 21 Filed 05/15/19 Entered 05/15/19 18:56:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
2

Under Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1, unless a written response to the Motion and

supporting memorandum are filed with the Clerk of Court and served on the moving party 

within fourteen (14) days of the service of this notice objecting to the relief requested, the 

Court may deem any opposition waived, treat the motion as conceded, and issue an order 

granting the requested relief without further notice or hearing.

Date: May 15, 2019

/s/ Roy M. Terry, Jr.

Roy M. Terry, Jr., VSB No. 17764

SANDS ANDERSON PC

P.O. Box 2188

Richmond, VA 23218-2188

Telephone: 804.648.1636

 Chapter 7 Trustee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 15th day of May, 2019, a true copy of the foregoing was 

delivered by electronic means and/or mailed first class mail, postage fully prepaid, to the parties 

listed on the attached service list.1

/s/ Roy M. Terry, Jr.

 

1

In accordance with Local Bankruptcy Rule 5005-1(C)(8), when service is made on more than 25 persons or parties, 

the service list is not attached to copies served on each of the persons or parties, but is attached to the original 

Certificate of Service filed with the Court.

Case 19-31323-KLP Doc 21 Filed 05/15/19 Entered 05/15/19 18:56:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5053 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5053

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 22, 2020

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To exempt juveniles from the requirements for suits by prisoners, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Justice for Juveniles Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF JUVENILES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUITS BY 
              PRISONERS.

    Section 7 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 
U.S.C. 1997e) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (h), by striking ``sentenced for, or 
        adjudicated delinquent for,'' and inserting ``or sentenced 
        for''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(i) Exemption of Juvenile Prisoners.--This section shall not 
apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of the Justice for 
Juveniles Act or filed on or after such date if such action is--
            ``(1) brought by a prisoner who has not attained 22 years 
        of age; or
            ``(2) brought by any prisoner with respect to a prison 
        condition that occurred before the prisoner attained 22 years 
        of age.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 21, 2020.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
### §1730. Uniforms of carriers

Whoever, not being connected with the letter-carrier branch of the Postal Service, wears the uniform or badge which may be prescribed by the Postal Service to be worn by letter carriers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply to an actor or actress in a theatrical, television, or motion-picture production who wears the uniform or badge of the letter-carrier branch of the Postal Service while portraying a member of that service.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 785; Pub. L. 90–413, July 21, 1968, 82 Stat. 396; Pub. L. 91–375, §6(j)(35), Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 780; Pub. L. 101–647, title XII, §1210(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4832; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §310 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §187, 35 Stat. 1124).

Minor verbal change was made.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $100" in first par.

1990—Pub. L. 101–647 struck out ", if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that service" before period at end of second par.

1970—Pub. L. 91–375 substituted "Postal Service" for "Postmaster General" before "to be worn" in first par.

1968—Pub. L. 90–413 inserted provision exempting an actor or actress in a theatrical, television, or motion-picture production who wears the uniform or badge of the letter-carrier branch of the Postal Service from the penalties imposed by this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 91–375 effective within 1 year after Aug. 12, 1970, on date established therefor by Board of Governors of United States Postal Service and published by it in Federal Register, see section 15(a) of Pub. L. 91–375, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 39, Postal Service.
### **CHAPTER 235—APPEAL**

Sec.
3731.
Appeal by United States.
3732.
Taking of appeal; notice; time—Rule.
3733.
Assignment of errors—Rule.
3734.
Bill of exceptions abolished—Rule.
3735.
Bail on appeal or certiorari—Rule.
3736.
Certiorari—Rule.
3737.
Record—Rule.
3738.
Docketing appeal and record—Rule.
3739.
Supervision—Rule.
3740.
Argument—Rule.
3741.
Harmless error and plain error—Rule.
3742.
Review of a sentence.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1984**—Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §213(b), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2013, added item 3742.
- Newsroom        - Press Releases
      - Public Statements
      - Speeches
      - Testimony
      - Spotlight Topics
      - Media Gallery
      - Upcoming Events
      - Webcasts
      - What's New
      - SEC Videos
      - Reports and Publications
      - RSS Feeds
      - Social Media 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

**TIME AND DATE:**  Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies will hold a public telephonic meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. (ET). 

**PLACE:** The meeting will be conducted by telephonic conference call.  There will be no physical meeting place.  Members of the public may listen to the live audiocast of the telephonic meeting on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

**STATUS:**  The meeting will begin at 11:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public.  Members of the public may listen to the live audiocast of the telephonic meeting on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

**MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:**  On November 26, 2019, the Commission published notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10729), indicating that the meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee.  This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.

The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and regulations affecting small and emerging companies under the federal securities laws. 

**CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:**  For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: December 4, 2019

Vanessa A. CountrymanSecretary
387 P.2d 103

#### J. C. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. The FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT and Mr. Thomas B. Catron, Respondents.

No. 43.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Dec. 5, 1963.

COMPTON, Chief Justice, and CARMODY, CHAVEZ, NOBLE and MOISE, Justices, concurring.

Ordered that the request for free process be and the same is hereby granted, and the petition for writ of mandamus be and the same is hereby denied.
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Foster, Otherwise Called Charles Pete, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,713. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, Third Division.

January 25, 1968.

Barry Gross, of Chicago, for appellant;

John J. Stamos, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Truman Larrey, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by Not to be published in full.

JUSTICE SCHWARTZ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1215

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1215 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003.

#### § 1215.7 Instructions from the Administrator required in certain cases.

In the absence of appropriate instructions from the Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, departure-control officers shall not exercise the authority conferred by § 1215.2 in the case of any alien who seeks to depart from the United States in the status of a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15) (A) or (G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or in the status of a nonimmigrant under section 11(3), 11(4), or 11(5) of the Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations (61 Stat. 756): *Provided,* That in cases of extreme urgency, where the national security so requires, a departure-control officer may preliminarily exercise the authority conferred by § 1215.2 pending the outcome of consultation with the Administrator, which shall be undertaken immediately. In all cases arising under this section, the decision of the Administrator shall be controlling: *Provided,* That any decision to prevent the departure of an alien shall be based upon a hearing and record as prescribed in this part.