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

DAY HIGH

 592

 558

 579

 550

 542

 535

 592

 563

 631

 636

 661

 650

 610

 641

 724

 663

 703

 610

 592

 545

 548

 619

 635

 644

 662

 681

 690

 632

 636

 643

 346

 351

 351

 364

 379

 379

 395

 401

 397

 400

 394

 387

 387

 383

 387

 403

 398

 414

 423

 433

 437

 430

 443

 449

 433

 438

 445

 443

 454

 447

 418

 429

 429

 424

 428

 450

 451

 467

 476

 471

 459

 451

 435

 456

 464

 488

 499

 479

 481

 482

 486

 507

 510

 520

 517

 519

 521

 502

 505

 516

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 13, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 274

 281

 281

 278

 281

 294

 295

 305

 310

 307

 300

 295

 285

 298

 303

 318

 324

 312

 313

 314

 316

 329

 331

 337

 336

 337

 338

 326

 328

 335

TOTAL 14,240

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
1

NUMBER 13-17-00367-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ORLANDO FIGUEROA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 28th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

O R D E R

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Orlando Figueroa, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his 

conviction in trial court cause number CR-16-3151-A. The trial court’s certification of the 

defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an 

appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of 

appeal is not made a part of the record. Id. R. 25.2(d); see id. R. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. The 
2

purpose of the certification requirement is to efficiently sort appealable cases from nonappealable cases so that appealable cases can “move through the system unhindered 

while eliminating, at an early stage, the time and expense associated with nonappealable cases.” Greenwell v. Ct. of Apps. for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 159 S.W.3d 

645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 912 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Within thirty days of date of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, Hon. 

Michael George, is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification. If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant 

has a right to appeal, counsel is further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within 

thirty days of this notice, identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant 

has a right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4; Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 

614–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, 119 S.W.3d 838, 841 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (certification form provided in appendix to 

appellate rules may be modified to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under 

circumstances not addressed by the form). The motion must include an analysis of the 

applicable case law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by 

the record. See Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 614–15; cf. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 

316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that 

recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of 

record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting 
3

appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1,

10.2.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 31st day of July 2017.
§ 108.6 Equal access. ( a ) *General.* Consistent with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, no covered entity shall deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, or discriminate against, any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts or officially affiliated with any other Title 36 youth group that requests to conduct a meeting within that covered entity's designated open forum or limited public forum. No covered entity shall deny that access or opportunity or discriminate for reasons including the membership or leadership criteria or oath of allegiance to God and country of the Boy Scouts or of the Title 36 youth group.
( b ) *Specific requirements* — ( 1 ) *Meetings.* Any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts or officially affiliated with any other Title 36 youth group that requests to conduct a meeting in the covered entity's designated open forum or limited public forum must be given equal access to school premises or facilities to conduct meetings.
( 2 ) *Benefits and services.* Any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts or officially affiliated with any other Title 36 youth group that requests to conduct a meeting as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be given equal access to any other benefits and services provided to one or more outside youth or community groups that are allowed to meet in that same forum. These benefits and services may include, but are not necessarily limited to, school-related means of communication, such as bulletin board notices and literature distribution, and recruitment.
( 3 ) *Fees.* Fees may be charged in connection with the access provided under the Act and this part.
( 4 ) *Terms.* Any access provided under the Act and this part to any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts or officially affiliated with any other Title 36 youth group, as well as any fees charged for this access, must be on terms that are no less favorable than the most favorable terms provided to one or more outside youth or community groups.
( 5 ) *Nondiscrimination.* Any decisions relevant to the provision of equal access must be made on a nondiscriminatory basis. Any determinations of which youth or community groups are outside groups must be made using objective, nondiscriminatory criteria, and these criteria must be used in a consistent, equal, and nondiscriminatory manner.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7905)
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,

I, Charles A. Miracle, hereby certify that:

To my knowledge:



| | (A) |  | Amendment 1 to the Companys annual report on Form 10-K/A for
the fiscal year ended May 31, 2002 accompanying this Certification,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act); and
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (B) |  | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                                                  

This certification is being provided solely to
comply with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the accompanying Report,
including for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or as a
separate disclosure document.

Dated: November 14, 2002

/s/ Charles A. Miracle

---

Charles A. Miracle
Vice President Finance, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4039 — Arrow/DNS)

(2006/C 20/13)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 14 December 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
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

 731

 718

 724

 724

 725

 742

 763

 795

 817

 814

 797

 747

 728

 784

 781

 781

 789

 808

 808

 804

 817

 826

 839

 833

 797

 794

 797

 800

 804

 817

 811

 709

 701

 718

 705

 707

 710

 698

 766

 787

 799

 751

 716

 702

 731

 773

 756

 757

 791

 793

 793

 799

 815

 812

 798

 776

 759

 762

 768

 782

 799

 792

 719

 711

 720

 716

 715

 732

 727

 783

 800

 804

 772

 736

 714

 760

 777

 767

 767

 797

 801

 798

 811

 820

 821

 814

 788

 784

 787

 792

 800

 810

 805

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 8, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 460

 455

 461

 458

 458

 468

 465

 500

 510

 513

 493

 471

 457

 486

 496

 490

 490

 509

 511

 509

 517

 523

 523

 519

 503

 501

 502

 505

 510

 517

 513

TOTAL 23,948

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-01245 SNPRM

Directorate ID: 2011-CE-033-AD

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

 NO COMMENTS RECEIVED – If this box is checked, no signatures are required.

 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.

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: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO, we don’t agree because 
Page 2 of 3

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

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Date

Branch Manager Date
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

DAY HIGH

 641

 612

 639

 678

 687

 681

 658

 701

 727

 725

 711

 671

 569

 547

 580

 542

 573

 584

 527

 485

 436

 417

 412

 355

 353

 326

 399

 420

 413

 416

 428

 397

 373

 357

 348

 341

 335

 325

 326

 334

 311

 291

 287

 287

 286

 292

 286

 287

 280

 273

 278

 280

 277

 274

 269

 267

 260

 260

 262

 266

 535

 511

 466

 453

 430

 426

 431

 461

 458

 489

 461

 387

 337

 331

 332

 329

 338

 354

 357

 325

 320

 315

 303

 292

 293

 286

 289

 285

 290

 300

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2002 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:July 8, 2002

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 347

 332

 304

 296

 282

 279

 282

 301

 299

 318

 301

 255

 224

 221

 221

 219

 225

 235

 237

 217

 214

 211

 203

 196

 197

 193

 195

 192

 195

 201

TOTAL 11,184

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
nFPARTMMOF 

• -;^NSP0RTAT10N 

SERVED JANUARY 19,2011 :KET OPERAJlONb 

/Oil M 20 P \"- 2"\ 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MIDWEST HELICOPTER AIRWAYS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09GL0007 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0846 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MIDWEST HELICOPTER AIRWAYS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09GL0009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0973 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The Complaint of Complainant Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter 

"Complainant") was filed in each of these cases on September 24, 2009. Respondent 

Midwest Helicopter Airways, Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") had filed a Request for 

Hearing in both on September 15,2009. 

On January 18, 2011, Complainant withdrew its Complaint in each matter. 
14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attomey 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawals of Complaints having been read and 

considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Complainant's Withdrawal of Complaint in each matter be and is hereby 

granted; and 

2. These proceedings be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

1 

I 
FAA Docket Nos. CP09GL0007 

& CP09GL0009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

John S. Hoff, Respondent's Counsel 

Law Offices of Hoff & Herran 

135 LaSalle Street, Suite 3300 

Chicago, IL 60603-4134 

TEL: 312-346-8111 

FAX: 312-853-3924 

Kate Barber, Complainant's Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7B 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, EL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7862 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , No. 09-50426

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 5:09-cr-00067-



#  VAP-1 I SRAEL L EAL -F ELIX ,

Defendant-Appellant. ORDER



#  Filed April 19, 2011

ORDER KOZINSKI , Chief Judge: Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

5411PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS—SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2011 Thomson Reuters.
(No. 77-CC-1213

#### Leon Miles, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed October 5, 1977.*

Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In *Bargas v. State, 32*Ill.Ct.Cl__, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

*234The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State, supra,*and *Doubling v. State, supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







The
undersigned, Larry A. Hornbrook, Chief Financial Officer of Aztec Oil & Gas,
Inc. (the “Company”), and the Company, certify, under the standards set forth
and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2008, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and  results of operations of the Company.


Date: December
      16, 2008
              By:/s/ Larry A.
      HornbrookName:
      Larry A. HornbrookTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Financial Officer)




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.
Opinion issued January 2, 201 3

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 12
- 01065
- CV

——————————— IN RE ST. LUKE’S SUGAR LAN D PARTNERSHIP , L.L.P. , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 20 , 2012, relator St. Luke’s Sugar Land Partnership, L.L.P. filed a petition for writ of mandamus, requesting that this court order the trial court
to set aside an order compelling the production of documents

. * W e deny the

* The underlying case is Patel et al. v. St. Luke’s Sugar Land Partnership, L.L.P. et al. , No. 2011

- 24016, in the 152nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Robert Schaffer presiding.2

petition for writ of mandamus and lift the partial stay entered on November 21, 2012

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown , and Huddle

.
1 Ngo, Dan (FAA)

From: Ngo, Dan (FAA) Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:49 PM
To: 'david@hazonsolutions.com' ; 'info@hazonsolutions.com' Subject: Request for Information - FAA-2015-0218

Dear Mr. Culler:

This letter is to inform you that we have re ceived and reviewed your request for an amendment to Exemption No. 11442, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015- 0218. Upon initial review, it was determined that more information was needed in order to move forward with y our amendment. This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administ ration (FAA) to process your full amendment.

 Please clarify the power source (i.e. battery/ gas/propane-powered) for th e aircraft below. The list represents an initial assessment of the aircraft that the FAA is unable to move forward with.

1. Micro UAV Hazon Hex 2. Formica X4 3. Sealed Bubble X8 4. Formica X8 5. FlyAbility Gimball 6. UAV America Mule Quad

Please make any needed changes to the list, and submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any propr ietary information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulat ions.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by January 27, 2016. If we do not receive the information, we wi ll close the docket without notifying you further.

Regards,

Dan Ngo Office of Rulemaking, Aircra ft and Airport Rules Division Federal Aviation Administration
§ 304.22 Requirements for grantees in disbursing scholarships. Before disbursement of scholarship assistance to an individual, a grantee must— ( a ) Ensure that the scholar— ( 1 ) Is a citizen or national of the United States;
( 2 ) Is a permanent resident of— ( i ) Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; or
( ii ) The Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau during the period in which these entities are eligible to receive an award under the Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program; or
( 3 ) Provides evidence from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that the individual is— ( i ) A lawful permanent resident of the United States; or
( ii ) In the United States for other than a temporary purpose with the intention of becoming a citizen or permanent resident;
( b ) Limit the cost of attendance portion of the scholarship assistance (as discussed in § 304.21(a)) to the amount by which the individual's cost of attendance at the institution exceeds the amount of grant assistance the scholar is to receive for the same academic year under title IV of the HEA; and
( c ) Obtain a Certification of Eligibility for Federal Assistance from each scholar, as prescribed in 34 CFR 75.60, 75.61, and 75.62.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1462(h))
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

DAY HIGH

 565

 569

 566

 582

 573

 570

 575

 586

 578

 585

 585

 598

 583

 582

 607

 573

 572

 578

 579

 585

 580

 575

 566

 571

 557

 575

 584

 572

 569

 560

 544

 550

 558

 564

 554

 558

 559

 565

 567

 564

 557

 546

 552

 558

 553

 548

 554

 554

 527

 520

 526

 544

 533

 507

 504

 540

 532

 544

 545

 544

 555

 558

 562

 575

 562

 564

 568

 577

 573

 578

 576

 580

 569

 570

 582

 562

 562

 570

 560

 561

 561

 564

 555

 554

 539

 565

 569

 566

 564

 556

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 27, 2022

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 359

 361

 363

 371

 363

 365

 367

 373

 370

 373

 372

 374

 368

 368

 376

 363

 363

 368

 362

 363

 363

 365

 359

 358

 349

 365

 368

 366

 365

 360

TOTAL 16,957

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20