alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Emanuel Newman et al., Respondents, v. City of New York et al., Defendants, and All Continent Corporation et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.
### §§585, 586. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 648

Sections, act Mar. 31, 1933, ch. 17, §§1, 2, 46 Stat. 22, 23, provided for employment, in the nature of work relief, in forestation.
#### § 657.10 What combined application may an institution submit?

An institution that wishes to apply for an allocation of fellowships and for a grant to operate a Center under 34 CFR part 656 may submit a combined application for both grants to the Secretary.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122)
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40875 Conference Calendar

__________________ JOEL HARDY TUNSTLE, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:94-CV-260
- - - - - - - - - - June 26, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joel Hardy Tunstle, Texas prisoner #403543, appeals the district court's denial of his petition for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 relief. Tunstle does not address the district court's dismissal of his case or the reasons upon which the district court relied for the dismissal. Although pro se briefs are accorded liberal construction, "arguments must be briefed to be preserved." Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal quotationNo. 95-40875 -2- and citation omitted). Tunstle's failure to address the merits of the district court's opinion constitutes an abandonment of those issues on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (failure to identify any error in the district court's analysis or application to the facts of the case is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment). Tunstle's appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Tunstle that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Tunstle is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5053 

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

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2019 

Ms. SCANLON (for herself, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Mr. 

KATKO, and Mr. JEFFRIES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To exempt juveniles from the requirements for suits by 

prisoners, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice for Juveniles 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF JUVENILES FROM THE REQUIRE7 MENTS FOR SUITS BY PRISONERS. 

8 Section 7 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Per9 sons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997e) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5053 IH

1 (1) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘sentenced 

2 for, or adjudicated delinquent for,’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘or sentenced for’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(i) EXEMPTION OF JUVENILE PRISONERS.—This 

6 section shall not apply to an action pending on the date 

7 of enactment of the Justice for Juveniles Act or filed on 

8 or after such date if such action is— 

9 ‘‘(1) brought by a prisoner who has not at10 tained 22 years of age; or 

11 ‘‘(2) brought by any prisoner with respect to a 

12 prison condition that occurred before the prisoner 

13 attained 22 years of age.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# Official Journal L 388/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 388 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 643 November 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 388

English edition

Legislation

Volume 643 November 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | * | Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/1896 of 29 October 2021 amending Council Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

RECOMMENDATIONS

*

Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/1896 of 29 October 2021 amending Council Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 000 79

- CV

IN RE SANDY RAY DICKERSON RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

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

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of m andamus and is of

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and MCCOY , JJ.

DELIVERED: April 2, 2013

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8 (d).
----

| (a)   | The                Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005,                filed                on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the                “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (b)   | Information                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                  Paul                  Hamm                                                              Paul                  Hamm CEO /s/                  Jay                  Stulberg                                                            Jay                  Stulberg, President & CFO |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 25, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-10105

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HENRY GENE LAFFOON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-128-ALL-A

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

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Henry Gene Laffoon appeals the sentences imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for one count of aiding and abetting

bank robbery and two counts of possession of a firearm during and

in relation to a crime of violence. The district court sentenced

Laffoon to 71 months of imprisonment on the bank-robbery

conviction and to the statutory minimum sentence of 384 months

(32 years) of imprisonment on the firearms convictions. See

18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 2113(a).
No. 05-10105

-2-

Laffoon argues that the mandatory minimum sentences imposed

on his firearms convictions violate the Eighth Amendment’s

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because they

fail to take into account his mental retardation. Citing Atkins

v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), which held that the Eighth

Amendment protects against the execution of mentally retarded

defendants, he argues that the Supreme Court has recognized that

persons with reduced mental capabilities do not act with the same

level of moral culpability as other offenders. He argues that

the mandatory minimums set forth in § 924(c) are unconstitutional

because they fail to account for the lesser culpability of the

mentally retarded. He makes no other challenge to his sentence. 

We review the constitutionality of a federal statute de novo. 

United States v. Rasco, 123 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir. 1997). 

With the exception of a capital sentence, the imposition of

a mandatory sentence without consideration of mitigating factors

does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel

and unusual punishment. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 994-

95 (1991). As the Supreme Court has continually recognized a

distinction between capital and noncapital sentences, see

Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 995, Laffoon’s reliance on Atkins to extend

its rationale to noncapital cases is unavailing. The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Anthony J. Pascocello, Appellant, v. National Chain Company, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, .P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
### Part B—Textiles
(No. 76-CC-3164

#### John L. Cain, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed November 29,1978.*

This matter comes before the Court on a motion by Respondent to dismiss this cause.

In a recent case, *Jewel Food Stores, Division of Jewel Companies, Inc. v. State of Illinois,*this Court made a ruling in cases of this nature.

*654Based upon said decision, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied and an award is entered in the amount of $3.00 in favor of Claimant.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

May 13, 2013



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK

, Chief Judge

J OEL M. F LAUM

, Circuit Judge

D IANE S. S YKES

, Circuit Judge



### No

. 12

- 1439

R OYCE B ROWN

, Petitioner

- Appellant

,

v.

J OHN F. C ARAWAY

, Warden

, Respondent

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United

States District Court for the

Southern District of Indiana

, Terre Haute Division.

No. 2:12

- cv

- 28

- WTL

- WGH

William T. Lawrence

, Judge

.

Order

The opinion of this court issued on May 10, 2013, is amended as follows:

Page 32, line 13, “ Begay and Engel ” should be “ Bousley and Engel ”;

Page 32, line 25, “ Begay and Engel ” should be “ Bousley and Engel ”;

Page 32, 2 nd paragraph, line 1, “ Begay has a proviso” should be “ Bousley has a

proviso” ; and

Page 36, 1 st full paragraph, “Even if Begay were constitutional, and this were

Brown’s first collateral attack” should be revised to begin: “Even if this were Brown’s

first collateral attack”.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors



Board of Directors
Pacific Aerospace & Electronics, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statement numbers
333-29007, 333-39799 and 333-66469 on Forms S-8 and registration statement
numbers 333-25177 and 333-41407 on Forms S-3 of Pacific Aerospace & Electronics,
Inc. of our report dated July 16, 1999, except as to note 24 which is as of
August 19, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Pacific
Aerospace & Electronics, Inc. as of May 31, 1998 and 1999 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the two-year period ended May 31, 1999, which report
appears in the May 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of Pacific Aerospace &
Electronics, Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP


Seattle, Washington
August 27, 1999
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean TDS

1 675 271 401 264

2 779 275 434 284

3 725 280 433 284

4 726 288 444 290

5 703 293 445 291

6 719 284 441 289

7 694 295 404 266

8 714 290 432 283

9 703 305 452 295

10 672 313 438 287

11 651 312 429 281

12 651 334 415 272

13 657 350 435 285

14 701 342 448 293

15 723 355 465 303

16 734 357 469 306

17 749 357 473 308

18 767 370 498 324

19 764 377 494 321

20 764 392 493 321

21 756 403 540 350

22 733 409 541 350

23 759 433 572 369

24 773 441 581 375

25 731 465 596 384

26 769 484 602 388

27 744 510 604 389

28 718 529 620 399

29 783 542 632 407

30 760 561 645 415

31 786 562 658 423

Total 15534

COMMENT(S):

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Delta Mendota Canal At Headworks

Period: December 2023 Run Date: 1/16/2024
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT, SPLITTAIL and LONGFIN REPORT

April 2016

Note: Shaded area not verified with CDFW data Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Delta Smelt Splittail Longfin Pumping

Daily Total Daily Total

Daily Combined Daily Combined Daily In CFS In Acre Feet

Total Daily 14-Day Total Daily 14-Day Total

SWP Larval 

Yor N CVP Larval Yor N Total Average SWP CVP Total Average SWP Larval Yor N CVP Larval Yor N

1-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 n 0 n 459 1,009 1,468 910 2,001 2,911 0.0 0.0

2-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 n 0 n 555 997 1,552 1,101 1,977 3,078 0.0 0.0

3-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 n 0 n 454 996 1,450 901 1,976 2,877 0.0 0.0

4-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 4 4 12 0 n 0 n 459 996 1,454 910 1,975 2,885 0.0 0.0

5-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 n 0 n 541 994 1,535 1,074 1,971 3,045 0.0 0.0

6-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 n 0 n 357 995 1,352 709 1,973 2,682 0.0 0.0

7-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 2 5 7 4 0 n 0 n 637 999 1,636 1,264 1,981 3,245 0.0 0.0

8-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 4 4 3 0 n 0 n 454 1,001 1,454 900 1,985 2,885 0.0 0.0

9-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 n 0 n 454 1,000 1,454 900 1,984 2,884 0.0 0.0

10-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 n 0 n 541 1,001 1,542 1,074 1,985 3,059 0.0 0.0

11-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 n 0 n 466 1,000 1,466 924 1,983 2,907 0.0 0.0

12-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 n 0 n 454 998 1,452 901 1,979 2,880 0.0 0.0

13-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 n 0 n 358 997 1,355 710 1,977 2,687 0.0 0.0

14-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 n 0 n 500 998 1,498 992 1,979 2,971 0.0 0.0

15-Apr-16 0 n 4 n 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 n 0 n 541 996 1,538 1,074 1,976 3,050 0.0 2.0

16-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 6 0 6 2 0 n 0 n 466 993 1,459 924 1,969 2,893 0.0 0.0

17-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 n 0 n 541 993 1,534 1,073 1,970 3,043 0.0 0.0

18-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 n 0 n 362 994 1,356 718 1,972 2,690 0.0 0.0

19-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 4 0 4 2 0 n 0 n 633 996 1,628 1,255 1,975 3,230 0.0 0.0

20-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 n 0 n 500 998 1,498 992 1,979 2,971 0.0 0.0

21-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 n 0 n 555 998 1,553 1,101 1,980 3,081 0.0 0.0

22-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 n 0 n 560 1,000 1,560 1,111 1,983 3,094 0.0 0.0

23-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 n 0 n 541 998 1,539 1,074 1,979 3,053 0.0 0.0

24-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 n 0 n 1,542 991 2,532 3,058 1,965 5,023 0.0 0.0

25-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 n 0 n 1,373 987 2,359 2,723 1,957 4,680 0.0 0.0

26-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 1 4 5 1 0 n 0 n 1,542 984 2,525 3,058 1,951 5,009 0.0 0.0

27-Apr-16 0 n 0 n 0 0 4 0 4 2 0 n 0 n 1,531 976 2,507 3,036 1,936 4,972 0.0 0.0

28-Apr-16 4 n 0 n 4 1 2 0 2 2 0 n 0 n 1,459 980 2,439 2,894 1,944 4,838 1.4 0.0

29-Apr-16 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 1,551 980 2,531 3,076 1,944 5,020 0.0 0.0

30-Apr-16 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 1,551 993 2,544 3,076 1,970 5,046 0.0 0.0

Total 4 4 8 XXXX 27 17 44 XXXX 0 0 21,937 29,834 51,772 43,513 59,176 102,689 XXXX XXXX

Official data is posted on CDFW's webpage.

DATE

Banks Tracy Combined Banks

Delta Smelt 

Daily Density

Tracy Combined SWP CVP
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FRANCINE NESBARY,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3046

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-0752-13-0588-I-1.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

Francine Nesbary moves the court for an extension of 

time to file her principal brief. The Department of Treasury’s motion to dismiss the petition is currently pending 

with the court. 

We note that the motion to dismiss suspends the due 

date for the brief. Fed. Cir. R. 31(c). Thus, the motion for 

an extension of time is unnecessary. 

Accordingly, 

Case: 14-3046 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 03/12/2014
2 NESBARY v. TREASURY

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The briefing schedule is stayed. 

(2) Nesbary’s motion for an extension of time to file 

her brief is moot. No brief is due until after disposition of 

the motion to dismiss, if appropriate. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s26

Case: 14-3046 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 03/12/2014
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

In Re: Teri Allen Kelly CASE NO. 19-30387-KRH

Chapter 13

)

)

6917 Dan Street

Henrico, VA 23231

Debtor Address(es):

Last four digits of Social Security No(s).: 4635

MOTION TO DISMISS, NOTICE OF MOTION AND NOTICE OF THE HEARING

NOW COMES the Chapter 13 Trustee and moves this Court to dismiss this case as 

provided in 11 U.S.C. 1307(c)(6) as the Debtor(s) are in default in making the payments under 

the plan.

Carl M. Bates, Chapter 13 Trustee, has filed papers with the court to dismiss this case.

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

them with your attorney, if you have one in this bankruptcy case. (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 on or before seven (7) days before the date of 

the hearing, you or your attorney must:

 X File with the court, at the address shown below, a written request for a hearing [or a 

written response pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(H)]. If you mail your request for 

hearing (or response) to the court for filing, you must mail it early enough so the court will 

receive it on or before the date stated above.

Clerk of Court

United States Bankruptcy Court

701 East Broad Street, Suite 4000

Richmond, VA 23219

Carl M. Bates

Chapter 13 Trustee

P.O. Box 1819

Richmond, VA 23218

(804)237-6800

VSBN 27815

Case 19-30387-KRH Doc 42 Filed 08/18/20 Entered 08/18/20 13:52:08 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
You must also mail a copy to:

Carl M. Bates, Chapter 13 Trustee

Chapter 13 Trustee

P.O. Box 1819

Richmond, VA 23218

 _ Attend a hearing to be scheduled at a later date. You will receive separate notice of 

hearing. If no timely response has been filed opposing the relief requested, the court may 

grant the relief without holding a hearing.

 X Attend the hearing on the motion scheduled to be held on October 07, 2020 at 11:00 AM

at United States Bankruptcy Court, 701 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23219, Room 5000.

If you or your attorney do not take these steps, the court may decide that you do not 

oppose the relief sought in the motion and may enter an order granting that relief.

Dated: August 18, 2020 /s/ Carl M. Bates

Carl M. Bates

Chapter 13 Trustee

P.O. Box 1819

Richmond, VA 23218

VSBN 27815

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have this 18th day of August, 2020, by mail, hand or electronically 

delivered a true copy of the foregoing Notice of Motion and Motion to the debtor(s) Teri Allen 

Kelly, 6917 Dan Street, Henrico, VA 23231 and debtor(s) attorney, Suad Bektic, via e-mail: 

sbektic@newdaylegal.com.

/s/ Carl M. Bates

Carl M. Bates

Chapter 13 Trustee

Carl M. Bates

Chapter 13 Trustee

P.O. Box 1819

Richmond, VA 23218

(804)237-6800

VSBN 27815

Case 19-30387-KRH Doc 42 Filed 08/18/20 Entered 08/18/20 13:52:08 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
#### § 668.509 Severability.

If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice will not be affected thereby.
### §3002. Courts always open—(Rule)

#### See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Business hours, rule 56.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 814.)
#### § 241.12 Nonapplication of costs of detention and maintenance.

The owner of a vessel or aircraft bringing an alien to the United States who claims to be exempt from payment of the costs of detention and maintenance of the alien pursuant to section 241(c)(3)(B) of the Act shall establish to the satisfaction of the district director in charge of the port of arrival that such costs should not be applied. The district director shall afford the owner a reasonable time within which to submit affidavits and briefs to support the claim. There is no appeal from the decision of the district director.