alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 76.600 Where to find construction regulations. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70338 , Aug. 29, 2024.
( a ) A State or a subgrantee that requests program funds for construction, or whose grant or subgrant includes funds for construction, shall comply with the rules on construction that apply to applicants and grantees under 34 CFR 75.600-75.617.
( b ) The State shall perform the functions that the Secretary performs under §§ 75.602 (Preservation of historic sites) and 75.605 (Approval of drawings and specifications) of this title.
( c ) The State shall provide to the Secretary the information required under 34 CFR 75.602(a) (Preservation of historic sites).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 6511(a))
[45 FR 22517, Apr. 3, 1980. Redesignated at 45 FR 77368, Nov. 21, 1980, as amended at 45 FR 86298, Dec. 30, 1980; 57 FR 30341, July 8, 1992]
§ 81.32 Proportionality. ( a ) ( 1 ) A recipient that made an unallowable expenditure or otherwise failed to account properly for funds shall return an amount that is proportional to the extent of the harm its violation caused to an identifiable Federal interest associated with the program under which it received the grant or cooperative agreement.
( 2 ) An identifiable Federal interest under paragraph (a)(1) of this section includes, but is not limited to, the following: ( i ) Serving only eligible beneficiaries.
( ii ) Providing only authorized services or benefits.
( iii ) Complying with expenditure requirements and conditions, such as set-aside, excess cost, maintenance of effort, comparability, supplement-not-supplant, and matching requirements.
( iv ) Preserving the integrity of planning, application, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
( v ) Maintaining accountability for the use of funds.
( b ) The appendix to this part contains examples that illustrate how the standards for proportionality apply. The examples present hypothetical cases and do not represent interpretations of any actual program statute or regulation.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1234(f)(1), 1234b(a), and 3474(a))
[54 FR 19512, May 5, 1989. Redesignated at 58 FR 43473, Aug. 16, 1993]
###### Editorial Note on Part 13

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 13 appear by T.D. ATF-449, 66 FR 19085, Apr. 13, 2001.

#### § 13.52 Notice of revocation.

If TTB determines that a certificate holder is still using a certificate of label approval, certificate of exemption from label approval, or distinctive liquor bottle approval that is no longer in compliance due to amendments or revisions in the law or regulations, the appropriate TTB officer will notify the certificate holder in writing that the subject certificate has been revoked by operation of law or regulations, with a brief description of the grounds for such revocation.
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

 781

 893

 895

 750

 907

 836

 895

 795

 777

 810

 819

 876

 935

 956

 886

 940

 905

 902

 911

 979

 923

 1,016

 1,058

 1,032

 998

 1,031

 1,038

 991

 957

 955

 947

 648

 649

 683

 682

 715

 735

 786

 709

 699

 710

 709

 820

 800

 818

 815

 841

 858

 857

 786

 932

 772

 778

 994

 952

 936

 998

 984

 891

 887

 824

 810

 685

 754

 790

 707

 823

 761

 826

 737

 720

 757

 734

 852

 878

 901

 845

 888

 883

 879

 819

 967

 810

 916

 1,021

 994

 972

 1,018

 1,015

 924

 921

 890

 884

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MARCH 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 2, 2021

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 439

 482

 504

 453

 525

 486

 526

 471

 461

 484

 470

 543

 559

 573

 538

 565

 562

 559

 522

 614

 517

 582

 647

 630

 617

 645

 643

 587

 585

 566

 562

TOTAL 26,571

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          19,909
<SECURITIES>                                    13,846
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,132
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (436)
<INVENTORY>                                        222
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,430
<PP&E>                                           9,358
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,088)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,622
<BONDS>                                            840
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,914
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,508
<SALES>                                          5,222
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,824
<CGS>                                              341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      684
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,630
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  22
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    917
<INCOME-TAX>                                       383
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                534
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       534
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06


</TABLE>
#### State of Missouri, Respondent, *v.*William Kennedy, Appellant.

December 9, 1884.

1. Criminal Law — Biteqlary. —One who enters a house through an open window or door is not guilty of burglary.

2. -Practice. — Appellate courts will reverse a criminal conviction which ia without substantial evidence to support it.

Appeal from the St. Louis Criminal Court, Van Wagoner, J.

*jReversed as to*burglary, *and affirmed as to larceny.*

R. W. Goode, for the appellant.

T. B. Harvey, for the respondent.

Thompson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was indicted in one count for burglary in the second degree and larceny. He was convicted of both offences, and his punishment' was assessed at seven years in the penitentiary, four years for the burglary and three years for the larceny.

The evidence tended to show that the prosecuting witness, Renn, and one Corcoran, slept in a room on the second floor of a building; that about half-past four o’clock in the morning Renn, who was a street railway conductor, got up and went to his work, leaving Corcoran in bed, and leaving the door of the room open at Corcoran’s request; that in order to get from the room to the street it was necessary to pass through two doors ; that Renn returned about six o’clock and found that his coat had been stolen; that the window was up and that there were marks on the window and awning which indicated that the thief had entered or escaped through the window. As to whether the window was up at the time the thief entered, the evidence is not clear. Renn testifies that he shut the window when he went to bed; that he did *288not notice it open when he got up, and that he could not say whether it was up or down when he left the room. Corcoran could not say whether it was open or shut when he (Corcoran) went to bed; but it does not appear which went to bed first, Renn or Corcoran. For aught that appears Corcoran may have gone to bed last and left the window open. There is nothing in the testimony which excludes this hypothesis; and the prisoner was entitled to the benefit of whatever doubt there was on this point.

Then supposing that the entrance may have been made through the door, the inner door was certainly open when the entrance was effected, and whether the outer door was open or shut, there was no evidence. If the thief climbed in through an open window or walked in through an open door, the offence was not burglary. The other evidence in the case was sufficient to sustain the verdict for the larceny. But we do not think that the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury upon the question of burglary, and we therefore think that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by the prisoner, that they must aquit the defendant of the burglary.

Following the precedent of *The State*v. *Alexander*(56 Mo. 131), and *The State*v. *Bruffey*(11 Mo. App. 79), we therefore reverse the judgment as to the burglary and affirm it as to the larceny. It is so ordered.

All the judges concur.
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

 496.20

 496.40

 496.70

 497.00

 497.26

 497.59

 497.91

 498.44

 498.95

 499.46

 500.09

 501.00

 501.40

 502.10

 502.89

 503.53

 504.06

 504.71

 505.52

 506.02

 506.81

 507.20

 507.74

 508.15

 508.50

 509.10

 509.74

 510.75

 511.63

 512.30

 1,464,301

 1,466,573

 1,469,984

 1,473,398

 1,476,358

 1,480,119

 1,483,769

 1,489,820

 1,495,651

 1,501,490

 1,508,714

 1,519,168

 1,523,771

 1,531,838

 1,540,960

 1,548,363

 1,554,503

 1,562,044

 1,571,459

 1,577,281

 1,586,493

 1,591,048

 1,597,363

 1,602,162

 1,606,264

 1,613,303

 1,620,823

 1,632,714

 1,643,100

 1,651,022

 3,322

 3,714

 4,290

 3,710

 4,290

 2,982

 866

 1,164

 871

 3,438

 2,858

 3,377

 3,422

 4,274

 5,074

 5,064

 5,859

 6,175

 6,365

 4,353

 4,248

 5,070

 7,166

 4,222

 4,575

 6,776

 7,150

 7,057

 5,786

 6,020

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SAN LUIS RESERVOIR FEDERAL January 17, 2007

DAILY OPERATIONS

NOVEMBER 2006 RUN DATE:

FEDERAL

CHANGE CHANGE

PACHECO

PUMP

TOTALS 190,128 0 9,719 125,188

FEDERAL

PUMP ADJ

FEDERAL

GEN

 3,407

 2,272

 3,411

 3,414

 2,960

 3,761

 3,650

 6,051

 5,831

 5,839

 7,224

 10,454

 4,603

 8,067

 9,122

 7,403

 6,140

 7,541

 9,415

 5,822

 9,212

 4,555

 6,315

 4,799

 4,102

 7,039

 7,520

 11,891

 10,386

 7,922

 500

 484

 419

 270

 241

 279

 259

 252

 249

 266

 252

 286

 401

 414

 410

 398

 397

 325

 257

 270

 265

 261

 270

 273

 265

 254

 317

 305

 302

 578

3,016

2,851

3,731

3,483

3,627

2,902

3,061

3,337

2,990

2,925

2,476

3,189

2,938

3,449

4,186

4,433

4,769

5,746

5,653

3,999

3,637

4,589

6,658

3,820

4,040

6,788

6,221

6,253

4,782

5,639

ELEV STORAGE

 133,538

 441,780

 444,631

 448,362

 451,845

 455,472

 458,374

 461,435

 464,772

 467,762

 470,687

 473,163

 476,352

 479,290

 482,739

 486,925

 491,358

 496,127

 501,873

 507,526

 511,525

 515,162

 519,751

 526,409

 530,229

 534,269

 541,057

 547,278

 553,531

 558,313

 563,952

FEDERAL

STORAGE

COMMENTS : 

VALUES IN ACRE-FEET

 438,764

0

0

0

0

0

0

2,700

2,700

2,700

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8,100
### §1731. Vehicles falsely labeled as carriers

It shall be unlawful to paint, print, or in any manner to place upon or attach to any steamboat or other vessel, or any car, stagecoach, vehicle, or other conveyance, not actually used in carrying the mail, the words "United States Mail", or any words, letters, or characters of like import; or to give notice, by publishing in any newspaper or otherwise, that any steamboat or other vessel, or any car, stagecoach, vehicle, or other conveyance, is used in carrying the mail, when the same is not actually so used.

Whoever violates, and every owner, receiver, lessee, or managing operator who suffers, or permits the violation of, any provision of this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 785; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §311 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §188, 35 Stat. 1124).

Reference to persons causing or procuring was omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of "principal" in section 2 of this title.

The punishment provision was rewritten to conform more closely with comparable offenses in other sections. (See sections 1729 and 1730 of this title.)

Minor verbal changes were made.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $500" in second par.
**COURT OF APPEALS**

**SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS**

**FORT WORTH**

**NO. 02-12-00565-CR**

**NO. 02-12-00566-CR**

**NO. 02-12-00567-CR**

**NO. 02-12-00568-CR**

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

THE 

FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

**ORDER**

-----------

Appellant Cedric Lamier Higgs’s brief was originally due April 8, 2013.  This court has granted one previous extension of time to file appellant’s brief.  On April 19, 2013, in granting appellant’s “Motion To Extend Time For Filing Of Appellant’s Brief,” we ordered the brief due on June 7, 2013, and we stated in our order that **no further extensions would be granted**.  Nevertheless, as of this date, no appellant’s brief has been filed in this court.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the Hon. Kimberly Campbell, appointed counsel for appellant, file an appellate brief with this court on behalf of appellant on or before **July 12, 2013.  NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR FILING APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE GRANTED.**If the brief is not filed by Friday, July 12, 2013, appellant’s counsel will be required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court for failing to file a timely brief.  

Failure to timely comply with this order will result in this case being abated and remanded to the trial court (A) to conduct a hearing to determine (1) whether the appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, (2) why appointed counsel has not filed a brief and whether counsel has abandoned the appeal, (3) the exact date that counsel will file a brief on appellant’s behalf in the court of appeals or whether substitute counsel should be appointed to represent appellant, and (4) whether appellant desires to proceed pro se; (B) to appoint substitute counsel if necessary; and (C) to make findings for the purpose of aiding this court in determining whether to initiate contempt proceedings against the Hon. Kimberly Campbell.  *See* Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2)–(4).

The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the Hon. Kimberly Campbell via certified mail return receipt requested and first class mail, to all other counsel of record, and to the trial court judge.

DATED June 28, 2013.

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

JUSTICE

2

# image1.png
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17459-17460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7400]


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

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: The Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation 
will meet telephonically on March 31, 2011. The meeting will begin at 
11 a.m., Eastern Time, and continue until conclusion of the Board's 
agenda.

LOCATION: The Legal Services Corporation, 3rd Floor Conference Center, 
3333 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007.

PUBLIC OBSERVATION: Unless otherwise noticed, all meetings of the LSC 
Board of Directors are open to public observation. Members of the 
public that are unable to attend but wish to listen to a public 
proceeding may do so by following the telephone call-in directions 
given below. You are asked to keep your telephone muted to eliminate 
background noises. From time to time the presiding Chair may solicit 
comments from the public.

Call-In Directions for Open Session(s)

    <bullet> Call toll-free number: 1-(866) 451-4981;

[[Page 17460]]

    <bullet> When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 
5907707348;
    <bullet> When connected to the call, please ``MUTE'' your telephone 
immediately.

    Status of Meeting: Open.

Matters To Be Considered

Open Session

    1. Approval of agenda.
    2. Consider and act on the establishment of a Pro Bono Task Force.
    3. Consider and act on other business.
    4. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to 
the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may 
be sent by electronic mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83c5d1dccdccd7cac0c6dcd2d6c6d0d7cacccdd0c3eff0e0ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d593878a9b9a819c96908a84809086819c9a9b8695b9a6b6fbb2baa3">[email protected]</span></a>.

SPECIAL NEEDS: Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in 
alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments. 
Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to attend 
the meeting may notify Katherine Ward, at (202) 295-1500 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eaacb8b5a4a5bea3a9afb5bbbfafb9bea3a5a4b9aa869989c48d859c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95d3c7cadbdac1dcd6d0cac4c0d0c6c1dcdadbc6d5f9e6f6bbf2fae3">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 24, 2011.
Victor M. Fortuno,
Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7400 Filed 3-25-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3287

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jimmie J. Caldwell, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 17, 2006

Filed: August 22, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jimmie J. Caldwell (Caldwell) pled guilty to three counts of distributing 5

grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B).

The district court1

 imposed concurrent sentences of 188 months’ imprisonment and

8 years’ supervised release. On appeal, Caldwell’s counsel moved to withdraw, and

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing: (1) the district

court erred in enhancing Caldwell’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 for recklessly
-2-

creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person; and (2)

the court imposed an unreasonable sentence. We reject each argument and affirm.

The testimony at Caldwell’s sentencing hearing showed, in the course of fleeing

from law enforcement officers to evade his arrest on the instant offense, Caldwell was

speeding in his car and driving erratically on a congested highway. We conclude the

district court did not clearly err in applying the section 3C1.2 enhancement. See

United States v. St. James, 415 F.3d 800, 806 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding section 3C1.2

enhancement was not clearly erroneous where evidence showed defendant drove car

erratically at high speeds on congested streets, thereby placing both law enforcement

personnel and public in danger).

Additionally, Caldwell’s sentence was not unreasonable or an abuse of

discretion. The district court took the advisory Guidelines range into account–along

with other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and Caldwell’s arguments for a

variance–in sentencing Caldwell within the Guidelines range. Nothing in the record

indicates the court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an

improper or irrelevant factor, or made a plain error of judgment. See United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61 (2005) (stating section 3553(a) will guide appellate

courts in determining whether sentence is unreasonable); United States v. Lincoln,

413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (explaining a sentence within applicable Guidelines

range is presumptively reasonable and burden is on defendant to rebut that

presumption), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d

997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.) (standard of review; defining abuse of discretion), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we affirm, and grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
§ 463.210 How are local performance levels established? ( a ) The objective statistical adjustment model required under sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(viii) of WIOA and described in § 463.170(c) must be: ( 1 ) Applied to the core programs' primary indicators upon availability of data which are necessary to populate the model and apply the model to the local core programs;
( 2 ) Used in order to reach agreement on local negotiated levels of performance for the upcoming program year; and
( 3 ) Used to establish adjusted levels of performance at the end of a program year based on actual conditions, consistent with WIOA sec. 116(c)(3).
( b ) Until all indicators for the core program in a local area have at least 2 years of complete data, the comparison of the actual results achieved to the adjusted levels of performance for each of the primary indicators only will be applied where there are at least 2 years of complete data for that program.
( c ) The Governor, Local Workforce Development Board (WDB), and chief elected official must reach agreement on local negotiated levels of performance based on a negotiations process before the start of a program year with the use of the objective statistical model described in paragraph (a) of this section. The negotiations will include a discussion of circumstances not accounted for in the model and will take into account the extent to which the levels promote continuous improvement. The objective statistical model will be applied at the end of the program year based on actual economic conditions and characteristics of the participants served.
( d ) The negotiations process described in paragraph (c) of this section must be developed by the Governor and disseminated to all Local WDBs and chief elected officials.
( e ) The Local WDBs may apply performance measures to service providers that differ from the performance indicators that apply to the local area. These performance measures must be established after considering: ( 1 ) The established local negotiated levels;
( 2 ) The services provided by each provider; and
( 3 ) The populations the service providers are intended to serve.