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

31

DAY ELEV

 578.09

 578.68

 579.34

 580.11

 580.47

 578.72

 580.58

 580.93

 580.71

 581.36

 584.11

 582.91

 583.53

 582.36

 583.35

 582.70

 583.09

 583.11

 582.88

 583.50

 582.89

 583.64

 582.62

 584.23

 584.79

 584.45

 584.33

 585.05

 582.16

 584.17

 585.06

 18,460

 18,785

 19,153

 19,587

 19,795

 18,807

 19,858

 20,060

 19,933

 20,311

 21,958

 21,229

 21,605

 20,901

 21,495

 21,104

 21,338

 21,350

 21,211

 21,587

 21,217

 21,671

 21,056

 22,032

 22,377

 22,168

 22,094

 22,538

 20,782

 21,995

 22,545

STORAGE

-182

+325

+368

+434

+208

-988

+1,051

+202

-127

+378

+1,647

-729

+376

-704

+594

-391

+234

+12

-139

+376

-370

+454

-615

+976

+345

-209

-74

+444

-1,756

+1,213

+550

CHANGE

7,384

8,046

8,013

8,041

7,936

7,911

8,998

9,039

8,904

9,163

9,854

8,656

9,023

8,474

9,131

8,625

8,940

8,834

8,638

8,869

8,656

8,653

8,217

9,013

8,710

7,583

7,110

7,333

6,197

7,678

7,308

INFLOW

 7,472

 7,877

 7,822

 7,817

 7,824

 8,405

 8,460

 8,932

 8,963

 8,965

 9,018

 9,019

 8,827

 8,823

 8,737

 8,819

 8,815

 8,822

 8,700

 8,674

 8,838

 8,419

 8,524

 8,516

 8,530

 7,682

 7,141

 7,103

 7,076

 7,060

 7,023

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 90

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 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

 0

FISHTRAP

 4

 5

 5

 5

 7

 4

 8

 5

 5

 7

 6

 5

 6

 6

 5

 3

 7

 6

 8

 5

 5

 5

 3

 5

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 8

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2021 KESWICK RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: June 1, 2021

RES.

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +3,903 258,937 256,703 90 0 174

ACRE-FEET +3,903 513,602 509,170 179 0 345

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 509,170

SPILL 179

 18,642

FISH TRAP 0

SPRING

CR. P. P.

RELEASE (1)

 77

 77

 77

 77

 53

 38

 39

 38

 37

 37

 37

 37

 37

 60

 76

 84

 76

 81

 76

 76

 392

 419

 150

 85

 75

 184

 75

 75

 76

 228

 614

 3,563

 7,067

*COMPUTED INFLOW IS SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, AND EVAPORATION.

(1) EVAPORATION RECORDS TAKEN FROM SHASTA PAN.

SHASTA

RELEASE

C.F.S

 7,069

 7,689

 7,635

 7,666

 7,603

 7,626

 8,684

 8,736

 8,583

 8,845

 9,601

 8,278

 8,590

 8,141

 8,691

 8,104

 8,451

 8,335

 8,230

 8,495

 7,864

 7,850

 7,696

 8,531

 8,170

 6,911

 6,637

 6,939

 5,779

 7,150

 6,290

 244,869

 485,698
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 ELEV

 461.85

 461.63

 461.47

 461.42

 461.39

 461.33

 461.37

 461.41

 461.20

 461.12

 461.05

 460.95

 460.97

 460.90

 460.79

 460.73

 460.62

 460.63

 460.45

 460.05

 459.69

 459.29

 458.92

 458.47

 457.91

 457.21

 456.57

 455.98

 455.48

 454.79

 931.1

 928.7

 926.9

 926.4

 926.0

 925.4

 925.8

 926.3

 924.0

 923.1

 922.3

 921.2

 921.5

 920.7

 919.5

 918.9

 917.7

 917.8

 915.8

 911.5

 907.6

 903.3

 899.3

 894.4

 888.4

 880.9

 874.1

 867.9

 862.6

 855.3

STORAGE

-2.1

-2.4

-1.7

-0.5

-0.3

-0.7

+0.4

+0.4

-2.3

-0.9

-0.8

-1.1

+0.2

-0.8

-1.2

-0.7

-1.2

+0.1

-2.0

-4.3

-3.9

-4.3

-4.0

-4.8

-6.0

-7.5

-6.8

-6.3

-5.3

-7.3

CHANGE

2,825

2,763

3,380

3,513

3,416

2,702

2,918

3,107

1,885

2,033

2,105

1,591

2,094

1,754

1,804

1,713

1,491

2,120

2,012

1,479

1,428

1,251

1,537

1,639

1,318

1,061

1,202

1,249

1,721

1,290

INFLOW

 3,559

 3,676

 3,987

 3,532

 3,340

 2,762

 2,383

 2,566

 2,754

 2,168

 2,282

 1,925

 1,714

 1,829

 2,109

 1,749

 1,795

 1,745

 2,676

 3,344

 3,078

 3,130

 3,232

 3,745

 4,015

 4,497

 4,302

 4,064

 4,004

 4,572

POWER

 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

SPILL

 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

OUTLET

 230

 215

 222

 191

 187

 198

 228

 238

 204

 218

 129

 136

 210

 221

 214

 207

 212

 226

 225

 224

 219

 217

 221

 232

 231

 230

 243

 255

 256

 257

PUMPING

 83

 83

 51

 65

 54

 72

 87

 83

 83

 87

 79

 79

 61

 87

 83

 86

 86

 94

 97

 101

 93

 82

 96

 100

 103

 106

 92

 91

 126

 133

C.F.S.

 .23

 .23

 .14

 .18

 .15

 .20

 .24

 .23

 .23

 .24

 .22

 .22

 .17

 .24

 .23

 .24

 .24

 .26

 .27

 .28

 .26

 .23

 .27

 .28

 .29

 .30

 .26

 .26

 .36

 .38

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .10

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2009 FOLSOM LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: July 1, 2009

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. PLANT

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

 RIVER 

TOTALS -78.1 60,401 90,534 0 0 6,496 2,623 7.33 .10

ACRE-FEET -78,100 119,805 179,574 0 0 12,885 5,203

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, PUMPING AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 179,574

SPILL

PUMPING PLANT

 0

 12,885

TOTAL 192,459

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2008 TO DATE = 19.13

 933.1

OUTLET 0 .10
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Filemon SANCHEZ-VALDIVIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41761.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

*630James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Filemon Sanehez-Valdivia (Sanchez) appeals his sentence for illegal reentry after being deported subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. For the first time on appeal, Sanchez asserts that the district court’s belief during sentencing that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory, rather than advisory, is reversible error under *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Sanchez also asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. We need not decide the applicability of the waiver provision in this case because the issues that Sanchez raises lack arguable merit or are foreclosed.

We review Sanchez’s Roofer-based challenge for plain error. *See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th. Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 267, 163 L.Ed.2d 240 (2005). Sanchez has failed to establish that the error affected his substantial rights. *See United States v. Bringier,*405 F.3d 310, 317 n. 4 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 264, 163 L.Ed.2d 238 (2005). Therefore, he cannot demonstrate plain error.

Sanchez’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Sanchez contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez*
      *631
      *Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Sanchez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

The judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.

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.
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

 295

 294

 291

 286

 316

 317

 315

 319

 319

 315

 310

 305

 297

 295

 299

 292

 288

 273

 266

 259

 259

 255

 256

 225

 228

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 264

 264

 260

 264

 269

 297

 295

 289

 289

 278

 276

 271

 266

 249

 238

 232

 226

 221

 214

 214

 215

 216

 194

 191

 192

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 277

 276

 273

 275

 304

 306

 303

 302

 301

 296

 288

 285

 281

 277

 271

 261

 255

 246

 241

 237

 236

 236

 218

 208

 208

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MARCH 2016 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 12, 2016

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

HOLLAND TRACT ON OLD RIVER
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear by T.D. ATF-425, 65 FR 11890, Mar. 7, 2000.

§ 4.40 Label approval and release. ( a ) *Certificate of label approval.* Wine, imported in containers, is not eligible for release from customs custody for consumption, and no person may remove such wine from customs custody for consumption, unless the person removing the wine has obtained and is in possession of a certificate of label approval (COLA) and the containers bear labels identical to the labels appearing on the face of the certificate, or labels with changes authorized by the form. Any person removing wine in containers from customs custody for consumption must first apply for and obtain a COLA covering the wine from the appropriate TTB officer, or obtain authorization to use the COLA from the person to whom the COLA is issued. Products imported under another person's COLA are eligible for release only if each bottle or individual container to be imported bears the name (or trade name) and address of the person to whom the COLA was issued by TTB, and only if the importer using the COLA to obtain release of a shipment can substantiate that the person to whom the COLA was issued has authorized its use by the importer. If filing electronically, the importer must file with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), at the time of filing the customs entry, the TTB-assigned number of the valid COLA that corresponds to the label on the brand or lot of wine to be imported. If the importer is not filing electronically, the importer must provide a copy of the COLA to CBP at time of entry. In addition, the importer must provide a copy of the applicable COLA, and proof of the COLA holder's authorization if applicable, upon request by the appropriate TTB officer or a customs officer. The COLA requirement imposed by this section applies only to wine that is removed for sale or any other commercial purpose. See 27 CFR 27.49, 27.74 and 27.75 for labeling exemptions applicable to certain imported samples of wine.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Relabeling.* Imported wine in U.S. Customs custody which is not labeled in conformity with certificates of label approval issued by the appropriate TTB officer must be relabeled prior to release under the supervision and direction of customs officers of the port at which the wine is located.
( d ) *Cross reference.* For procedures regarding the issuance, denial, and revocation of certificates of label approval, as well as appeal procedures, see part 13 of this chapter.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 1513-0020 and 1513-0064) [T.D. ATF-66, 45 FR 40546, June 13, 1980, as amended by T.D. ATF-94, 46 FR 55095, Nov. 6, 1981; T.D. ATF-242, 51 FR 39525, Oct. 29, 1986; T.D. ATF-359, 59 FR 42160, Aug. 17, 1994; T.D. ATF-406, 64 FR 2128, Jan. 13, 1999; T.D. TTB-145, 81 FR 94197, Dec. 22, 2016]
###### Editorial Note on Part 21

#### Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear by T.D. ATF-435, 66 FR 5475, Jan. 19, 2001.

Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear by 81 T.D. TTB-140, 81 FR Aug. 30, 2016.

#### § 21.1 Scope of regulations.

The regulations in this part relate to the formulation of completely denatured alcohol, specially denatured alcohol, and specially denatured rum; to the specifications for denaturants; and to the uses of denatured spirits.
### §4. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 251, §1, 42 Stat. 1453, related to appointment, compensation, and qualifications of director and assistant directors of customs. See sections 2071 to 2073 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear by T.D. ATF-235, 66 FR 5473, Jan. 19, 2001, and T.D. ATF-463 and T.D. ATF-462, 66 FR 42733, 42736, Aug. 15, 2001.

§ 20.164 Premises. ( a ) A permittee shall have premises suitable for the business being conducted and adequate for protecting the revenue.
( b ) Storage facilities shall be provided on the premises for specially denatured spirits received or recovered. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, storage facilities shall consist of storerooms, compartments, or stationary storage tanks (not necessarily in a room or building).
( c ) A permittee receiving and storing specially denatured spirits in tank cars or tank trucks, as provided in § 20.163, need not provide stationary storage tanks.
( d ) If specially denatured spirits are received at or removed from a permittee's premises in bulk conveyances, suitable facilities for those operations shall be provided.
( e ) The appropriate TTB officer may require the storage facilities or distilling equipment to be secured with Government locks or seals, or both.
From: "Hancy, Cindy Wang" <chancy@rti.org> 

To: <brent.tracy@JM.com> 

Cc: Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Marinshaw, Richard" <rjmarinshaw@rti.org> 

Date: 02/10/2011 10:37 AM 

Subject: FW: JM Defiance Facility Test Report

Brent, 

I received the file but it still contains confidential information. Please remove “Appendix B – Process 

Data” since it contains multiple pages of CBI (specifically pull rates). I cannot do this myself because it is 

our policy to have files containing CBI completely and immediately wiped from our computers. If you do 

a quick search of the words “process”, “production” and “pull rate” you should be able to catch any 

instances of confidential information. You can email it to Susan or I once you have removed the CBI. 

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 

 

Regards, 

 

Cindy Wang Hancy 

RTI International 

P.O. Box 12194 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

Phone: (919) 541-6623 

Fax: (919) 316-3420 

 
From: Hancy, Cindy Wang 

Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 1:20 PM 

To: 'brent.tracy@JM.com' 

Cc: Marinshaw, Richard; 'Fairchild.Susan@epamail.epa.gov' 

Subject: JM Defiance Facility Test Report 

 

Brent, 

 

We received the public version of John Manville’s Defiance BTEC test report for the 2603 Furnace (Plant 

2) and Line 804/Line 81 Forming/Collection and Curing Oven . While reviewing the data we found CBI 

information that may have been overlooked (Process rate data on p 105 of 340). If this is indeed CBI, 

could you please resend a clean public version to the EPA address below. Please feel free to contact me 

if you have any questions 919.541.6623. 

 

Please mail completed non-confidential documents to: 

U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Program Division, Metals and Minerals Group 

U.S. EPA Mailroom D243-02 

Attn: Susan Fairchild 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Regards, 

 

Cindy Wang Hancy 

RTI International 

P.O. Box 12194 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

Phone: (919) 541-6623 

Fax: (919) 316-3420
### subpart 3—programs for recent immigrants, students of migrant parents and older americans
### Part A—International and Foreign Language Studies

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Part A of title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, comprising this part, was originally enacted by Pub. L. 89–329, title VI, Nov. 8, 1965, 79 Stat. 1261; amended Pub. L. 89–752, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1240; Pub. L. 90–575, Oct. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 1014; Pub. L. 92–318, June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 94–482, Oct. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 2081; Pub. L. 95–180, Nov. 15, 1977, 91 Stat. 1372; Pub. L. 96–49, Aug. 13, 1979, 93 Stat. 351; Pub. L. 96–374, Oct. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 1367; Pub. L. 97–375, Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1819; Pub. L. 99–386, Aug. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 821; Pub. L. 99–498, Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1268; Pub. L. 100–50, June 3, 1987, 101 Stat. 335; Pub. L. 102–325, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 448; Pub. L. 103–208, Dec. 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 2457. Part A is shown herein, however, as having been added by Pub. L. 105–244, title VI, §601, Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1774, without reference to those intervening amendments because of the extensive revision of part A by Pub. L. 105–244.
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 ELEV

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 360.00

 360.00

 359.97

 360.00

 360.00

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 360.00

 359.94

 360.60

 360.00

 360.60

 360.63

 360.60

 360.63

 360.63

 360.63

 360.63

 360.63

 360.63

 535

 535

 535

 535

 537

 537

 535

 537

 537

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 537

 533

 579

 537

 579

 581

 579

 581

 581

 581

 581

 581

 581

STORAGE

+2

+0

+0

+0

+2

+0

-2

+2

+0

-2

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+2

-4

+46

-42

+42

+2

-2

+2

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

CHANGE

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 24

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 209

 209

 214

 214

 212

 215

 200

 223

 229

 210

 220

 209

 205

 203

 204

 205

 201

 208

 205

 235

 480

 1,305

 1,300

 1,330

 1,334

 1,344

 1,336

 1,334

 1,328

 1,328

 1,323

SPILL

 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

 0

OUTLET

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

TRI DAMS PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2011 GOODWIN RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: April 1, 2011

RES.

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +48 0 17,972 24

ACRE-FEET +48 0 35,647 48

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

JOINT MAIN CANAL 17,124

SOUTH MAIN CANAL 48

 52,819

 533

OUTLET 0

TOTAL 

TULLOCH

RELEASE

 221

 220

 219

 218

 217

 216

 205

 201

 211

 756

 858

 931

 928

 930

 937

 936

 933

 935

 937

 933

 1,040

 1,466

 1,460

 1,402

 1,373

 1,305

 1,336

 1,325

 1,325

 1,325

 1,253

 26,552

 52,666

JOINT MAIN OPERATED BY SSJID AND OID.

SOUTH MAIN OPERATED BY OID.

JOINT

MAIN

SOUTH

MAIN

SPILL 35,647

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 242

 643

 705

 705

 704

 707

 708

 707

 709

 711

 711

 540

 239

 243

 156

 119

 53

 7

 6

 6

 6

 6

 8,633

 17,124

RIVER CANALS
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

YAN

- XU LU , Plaintiff

,

v. Civil Action No. 1:21

- cv - 01389 ( UNA )
ALLISON H. EID , et al.,

Defendants

.

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of P laintiff’s pro se C omplaint , ECF No. 1, and A pplication for leave to proceed in forma pauperis , ECF No. 2 . The Court will grant the in forma pauperis A pplication and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or is frivolous). Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the District of Utah’s dismissal of h is discrimination suit against the University of Utah. See generally Complaint, ECF No. 1; Yung

- Kai Lu v. Univ. of Utah , 790 F ed . App ’ x 933, 934 (10th Cir. 2019), cert. denied , 140 S. Ct. 2634 (2020) (“ Y ung Kai Lu, a citizen of Taiwan, appeals pro se from a district court order that dismissed his complaint against the University of Utah and some of its employees for not renewing his music scholarship and graduate teaching

- assistant position .”). H aving lost his appeals, Plaintiff now

sues Senior District J udge Clark Waddoups , who dismissed his case in Utah , and Tenth Circuit Judge Allison H. Eid , who wrote the opinion affirming the order of dismissal

. See Compl. ¶ 12 (parties list) ; Kung

- Kai Lu , 790 Fed. App’x at 934 (Order and Judgment) ; Yung

- Kai Lu v. Univ.2

of Utah , No. 2:16

- cv - 51

- CW, 2018 WL 3993458, at *1 (D. Utah Aug. 21, 2018) (adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing case with prejudice).
An “ in forma pauperis complaint is prop erly dismissed as frivolous .

. . if it is clear from the face of the pleading that the named defendant is absolutely immune from suit on the claims asserted.” Crisafi v. Holland 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Judges enjoy absolute immunity from a law suit, such as this, based on act ions properly taken in their judicial capacity. Moore v. Burger , 655 F.2d 1265, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (citing cases) ; see accord Caldwell v. Kagan , 455 Fed. App ’ x. 1 (D.C. Cir.2011) (citing Forrester v. White , 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988); Si ndram v. Suda , 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir.1993)) ; Jafari v. United States , 83 F. Supp. 3d 277, 280 (D.D.C.), aff ’ d , 621 F ed . App ’ x 676 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“ reviewing and attributing weight to evidence, granting and denying hearings, issuing decisions, and generally adjudicating the plaintiff ’ s case . . . are quintessential official judicial acts ”). Such “immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco , 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Further , a complaint against judges who have “done nothing more than their duty” is “a meritless action.” Fleming v. United S tates , 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 1150 (1995). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. A separate O rder accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: July 12, 2021 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge
#### In the Matter of Phyllis Fafard et al., Appellants, against Board of Education of the City of New Rochelle, Respondent.

Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Lewis, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 788.]