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 ELEV

 584.16

 584.51

 584.44

 584.23

 584.14

 584.21

 584.06

 583.45

 583.39

 583.13

 583.07

 583.52

 583.07

 582.62

 582.21

 581.54

 581.06

 581.91

 581.76

 582.22

 583.61

 583.61

 583.89

 584.10

 584.64

 584.34

 584.93

 583.93

 583.60

 583.49

 21,989

 22,205

 22,161

 22,032

 21,976

 22,020

 21,927

 21,556

 21,520

 21,362

 21,325

 21,599

 21,325

 21,056

 20,811

 20,416

 20,135

 20,633

 20,545

 20,817

 21,653

 21,653

 21,823

 21,952

 22,285

 22,100

 22,464

 21,848

 21,647

 21,580

STORAGE

+62

+216

-44

-129

-56

+44

-93

-371

-36

-158

-37

+274

-274

-269

-245

-395

-281

+498

-88

+272

+836

+0

+170

+129

+333

-185

+364

-616

-201

-67

CHANGE

5,709

5,791

5,644

5,611

5,657

5,706

5,641

5,500

5,644

5,595

5,649

5,804

5,544

5,556

5,388

5,555

5,608

5,729

5,712

5,942

6,147

5,449

5,629

5,679

5,795

5,512

5,835

5,382

5,593

5,661

INFLOW

 5,676

 5,679

 5,663

 5,672

 5,681

 5,683

 5,686

 5,684

 5,661

 5,674

 5,667

 5,665

 5,681

 5,690

 5,511

 5,753

 5,750

 5,478

 5,755

 5,803

 5,724

 5,444

 5,542

 5,613

 5,626

 5,602

 5,651

 5,690

 5,691

 5,694

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

FISHTRAP

 2

 3

 3

 4

 4

 1

 2

 3

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 1

 1

 0

 0

 1

 2

 2

 5

 1

 1

 1

 3

 0

 3

 3

 1

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2007 KESWICK RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: February 13, 2008

RES.

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -347 169,667 169,789 0 0 54

ACRE-FEET -347 336,534 336,776 0 0 107

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 336,776

SPILL 0

 21,927

FISH TRAP 0

SPRING

CR. P. P.

RELEASE (1)

 809

 838

 794

 908

 814

 830

 826

 817

 799

 825

 828

 808

 784

 739

 826

 805

 801

 778

 812

 905

 503

 813

 806

 815

 769

 763

 833

 845

 791

 849

 24,133

 47,868

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

SHASTA

RELEASE

C.F.S

 4,481

 4,686

 4,591

 4,450

 4,671

 4,724

 4,695

 4,500

 4,694

 4,625

 4,681

 4,844

 4,604

 4,716

 4,722

 4,685

 4,749

 4,849

 4,768

 4,918

 5,559

 4,514

 4,715

 4,745

 4,908

 4,662

 4,846

 4,375

 4,664

 4,702

 141,343

 280,354

Table 8
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

 121.94

 122.71

 122.84

 122.51

 122.18

 123.34

 123.11

 121.94

 122.28

 122.73

 123.07

 122.15

 122.89

 123.77

 123.24

 123.43

 123.66

 123.87

 124.51

 122.01

 122.99

 122.97

 122.41

 122.21

 122.76

 122.98

 122.83

 121.91

 121.92

 122.77

 7,316

 7,661

 7,719

 7,571

 7,422

 7,951

 7,843

 7,316

 7,467

 7,670

 7,824

 7,409

 7,742

 8,153

 7,904

 7,993

 8,101

 8,200

 8,516

 7,346

 7,787

 7,778

 7,526

 7,436

 7,683

 7,782

 7,715

 7,303

 7,307

 7,688

STORAGE

-70

+345

+58

-148

-149

+529

-108

-527

+151

+203

+154

-415

+333

+411

-249

+89

+108

+99

+316

-1,170

+441

-9

-252

-90

+247

+99

-67

-412

+4

+381

CHANGE

6,315

6,509

9,873

11,651

11,719

12,199

11,813

10,647

9,337

8,126

7,278

6,909

7,285

7,299

6,245

6,445

6,422

6,410

6,532

5,685

5,758

5,017

4,639

4,260

4,284

4,181

4,334

3,943

4,164

4,579

INFLOW

 4,598

 4,601

 4,310

 4,102

 2,880

 3,259

 4,948

 4,951

 4,936

 4,802

 4,799

 4,752

 4,752

 4,752

 4,229

 4,853

 4,810

 4,801

 4,757

 4,748

 3,687

 4,655

 4,686

 2,148

 425

 433

 409

 339

 1,397

 3,156

POWER

 1,646

 1,655

 5,486

 7,566

 8,847

 8,594

 6,840

 5,884

 4,248

 3,144

 2,323

 2,289

 2,287

 2,262

 2,063

 1,468

 1,478

 1,480

 1,536

 1,447

 1,769

 287

 0

 2,077

 3,654

 3,618

 3,880

 3,736

 2,696

 1,162

SPILL

 58

 51

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

HATCHERY

 3

 3

 3

 4

 3

 4

 4

 3

 2

 3

 3

 2

 3

 3

 4

 4

 5

 4

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 4

 3

 4

 4

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2017 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: July 1, 2017

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +302 209,858 111,975 95,422 1,369 115

ACRE-FEET +302 416,253 222,102 189,270 2,715 228

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 222,102

SPILL 189,270

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 1,638

 2,715

 7,386

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

CANAL

 45

 25

 0

 9

 19

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 28

 20

 20

 826

 1,638

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 415,725
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-4140

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Enoch A. Montaque, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 5, 2000 Filed: July 11, 2000

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BRIGHT, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. EnochA. Montaque appeals the district court's imposition of sentence upon Monta que's guilty plea to possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On appeal, Montaque's counsel moved to withdraw and filed abrief under Ande rs v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel's brief raises one issue: whether the court erroneously counted Montaque's 1979 murder conviction toward his career-offender status, essentially because Montaque was sentenced for the conviction more than 15 years before he committed the current offense. We affirm.-2-

Initially, we note that Montaque qualifies as a career offender even without the murder conviction, because two later controlled-substance felonies and a battery felony in Montaque's criminal history support career-offender status. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 4B1.1, 4B1.2 (1998). Nevertheless, state correctional records confirm that Montaque's parole on the murder conviction was revoked in 1985 and 1988, bringing the conviction within the 15-year "look-back" period. Se e U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(e)(1) (1998) (count any earlier sentence of 13 months, whenever imposed, resulting in defendant's incarceration during any part of 15- year period preceding current offense). Having reviewed the record and finding no other nonfrivolous issues, see Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we affirm and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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

DAY

 7,459

 7,420

 7,535

 7,285

 7,057

 6,782

 6,598

 6,792

 6,925

 7,045

 6,920

 6,574

 6,421

 6,400

 6,226

 6,290

 6,302

 6,382

 6,382

 6,380

 6,389

 6,468

 6,529

 6,536

 6,513

 6,511

 6,574

 6,638

 6,770

 21,499

 21,439

 21,183

 21,284

 21,313

 21,274

 21,110

 20,955

 20,668

 20,395

 20,425

 20,647

 20,779

 20,843

 21,045

 21,020

 21,076

 21,127

 21,230

 21,356

 21,413

 21,452

 21,538

 21,764

 21,877

 21,982

 22,034

 22,147

 22,230

STORAGE - A.F. 

 28,958

 28,859

 28,718

 28,569

 28,370

 28,056

 27,708

 27,747

 27,593

 27,440

 27,345

 27,221

 27,200

 27,243

 27,271

 27,310

 27,378

 27,509

 27,612

 27,736

 27,802

 27,920

 28,067

 28,300

 28,390

 28,493

 28,608

 28,785

 29,000

962

858

2,447

1,043

1,259

261

587

738

637

657

636

602

795

336

567

462

560

518

556

780

693

911

778

2,050

1,484

970

793

787

747

858

808

2,376

968

1,159

103

412

758

559

580

588

539

784

358

581

482

594

584

608

843

726

970

852

2,167

1,529

1,022

851

876

855

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2008 FULL NATURAL FLOW AT NEW MELONES DAM RUN DATE: 05/08/2008

TOTALS -165 24,390

* October 1, 48,378

 100.3

 101.9

 106.6

 108.5

 110.8

 111.0

 111.9

 113.4

 114.5

 115.6

 116.8

 117.8

 119.4

 120.1

 121.3

 122.2

 123.4

 124.6

 125.8

 127.4

 128.9

 130.8

 132.5

 136.8

 139.8

 141.9

 143.5

 145.3

 147.0

DONNELLS

RES

BEARDSLEY

RES

2007 TO DATE

NEW

MELONES

INFLOW

C.F.S

NATURAL

RIVER

C.F.S

ACCUM *

FULL

NATURAL

1000 A.F.

RESERVOIR

TOTAL

-207

-99

-141

-149

-199

-314

-348

+39

-154

-153

-95

-124

-21

+43

+28

+39

+68

+131

+103

+124

+66

+118

+147

+233

+90

+103

+115

+177

+215

CHANGE

A.F. C.F.S.

-104

-50

-71

-75

-100

-158

-175

+20

-78

-77

-48

-63

-11

+22

+14

+20

+34

+66

+52

+63

+33

+59

+74

+117

+45

+52

+58

+89

+108
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6718

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL LORENZO MORRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-94-46, CA-99-772-7) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 30, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Andrew Michael Sacks, SACKS & SACKS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael Lorenzo Morris seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Morris , Nos. CR-94-46; CA-99- 772-7 (W.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Samuel S. Underhill et al., Respondents, against Board of Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay et al., Appellants, and Hicksville *789Airpark Club, Intervener, Appellant.

Proceeding brought by respondents, neighboring property owners, to review the action of appellants, constituting the Board of Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay, in granting a permit to the Hicksville Airpark Club, the intervener-appellant, to use a thirty-five acre plot of land located in a residential district at the northwest corner of Robbins Lane and the Long Island Rail Road, as an airpark or aviation field. Order of Special Term reversing and annulling the determination of the Board of Appeals, denying said permit, and canceling all permits and certificates predicated thereon, affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. The permit was issued contrary to the provisions of section 249 of the General Business Law. Nor did the board comply with the requirements of subdivision C of section 18 of the Zone Ordinance that it specify the conditions and safeguards pursuant to which the permit was issued. Furthermore, the board’s action and the reasons set forth in its return, in granting the permit as to this property, shortly after it had denied a similar application as to property directly across Robbins Lane, demonstrate its action to have been inconsistent, arbitrary and capricious. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty and Sneed, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order appealed from and to confirm the determination of the Board of Appeals on condition that the appellants, within thirty days, obtain a waiver and consent from the Commissioner of Commerce of New York under section 249 of the General Business Law (as amd. by L. 1947, ch. 838) and upon default in obtaining such a waiver and consent to affirm the order, (a) The action of the board in respect of this tract, as compared with the other tract, had a reasonable basis for a different ruling; hence it was not arbitrary as a matter of law. *(Matter of Larkin Co.*v. *Schwab,*242 N. Y. 330, 334.) (b) The enactment of chapter 838 of the Laws of 1947 validated, in substance, if that were necessary, the board’s action so far as the factor of spacing, etc., was concerned. The board’s ruling makes action under the amended statute, so far as the municipality is concerned, a mere formality, and in any event requires affording an opportunity to obtain that formal approval from the Commerce Commissioner. Appellants are entitled to the benefit of this amended statute, under the circumstances, without being required again to go through the proceedings heretofore had. *(Matter of Kahn [National City Bank],*284 N. Y. 515; *Robinson v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co.,*238 N. Y. 271; *Kugel*v. *Telsey,*250 App. Div. 638; *Carpenter*v. *Wabash Ry. Co.,*309 U. S. 23, 27; McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 1, Statutes [1942 ed.] § 54.) In connection with proceeding in good faith with installations, see *Village of Mill Neck*v. *Nolan*(233 App. Div. 248) and *Brous*v. *Town of Hempstead*(272 App. Div. 31, 33). Nolan, J., not voting.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50319

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IGNACIO CASTRO-BALDERAS, also known as Stephen

Medina-Telfino, also known as Alfonso Luna,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-2059-ALL-DB

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ignacio CastroBalderas concedes that the arguments raised are foreclosed by

circuit precedent but seeks to preserve them for further review. 

The Government has moved for summary affirmance in lieu of filing

an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED, and the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3079

___________________________

Susan Lloyd lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. TD Bank USA NA CO Target Enterprise Inc.; Target Corporation

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________ Submitted: February 15, 2024 Filed: February 21, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Pennsylvania resident Susan Lloyd appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her pro se civil complaint asserting claims of discrimination under the Americans with

1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.Disabilities Act (ADA) against Target Corporation, as well as federal and state claims

related to debt collection. She also challenges the district court’s denial of her motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lloyd’s ADA claim without prejudice because it was misjoined. See Stephens v. Does, 777 Fed. Appx. 176, 177 (8th Cir. 2019) (unpublished per curiam) (standard of review). We also conclude the district court did not err in dismissing her remaining federal and state claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Christopherson v. Bushner, 33 F.4th 495, 499 (8th Cir. 2022) (standard of review). Finally, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lloyd leave to file her second amended complaint. See In re 2007 Novastar Fin. Inc., Sec. Lit., 579 F.3d 878, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); Knowles v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., 2 F.4th 751, 758 (8th Cir. 2021) (affirming denial of leave to amend and with-prejudice dismissal where, despite previous amendments, plaintiff unable to plead adequate claim). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
August 2023

STORAGE COMPUTED* RELEASE - C.F.S. EVAPORATION

ACRE-FEET INFLOW RIVER JUDGE (2)

DAY ELEV IN LAKE CHANGE C.F.S. POWER SPILL OUTLET

(1)

FRANCIS CARR

POWER PLANT C. F. S. INCHES

14.143

1 1,901.44 14.240 97 1,140 110 244 97 635 5 0.25

2 1,901.00 13.911 -329 926 110 241 97 635 9 0.40

3 1,901.20 14.061 150 1,020 110 237 97 496 4 0.19

4 1,901.57 14.337 276 1,076 110 235 97 489 6 0.29

5 1,901.31 14.143 -194 918 110 239 97 564 6 0.27

6 1,901.37 14.188 45 1,271 110 241 97 793 7 0.31

7 1,901.40 14.210 22 1,061 110 242 97 594 7 0.32

8 1,901.28 14.120 -90 1,074 110 243 97 663 6 0.27

9 1,901.10 13.986 -134 1,161 110 242 97 773 7 0.34

10 1,900.87 13.815 -171 1,041 110 237 97 677 6 0.29

11 1,901.04 13.941 126 1,156 110 236 97 642 7 0.34

12 1,901.56 14.330 389 1,164 110 236 97 519 6 0.27

13 1,901.60 14.360 30 967 110 238 97 500 7 0.31

14 1,901.31 14.143 -217 950 107 232 97 620 7 0.34

15 1,901.42 14.225 82 1,059 62 213 157 582 4 0.19

16 1,901.55 14.322 97 1,390 118 224 89 904 6 0.27

17 1,901.09 13.978 -344 1,175 118 265 89 871 5 0.25

18 1,900.69 13.683 -295 1,066 118 336 89 668 4 0.19

19 1,901.04 13.941 258 1,566 118 512 89 712 5 0.21

20 1,900.38 13.455 -486 1,866 118 1,063 89 836 5 0.24

21 1,900.73 13.712 257 3,138 118 2,054 89 744 3 0.13

22 1,901.29 14.128 416 2,222 118 1,383 89 422 0 0.00

23 1,901.76 14.479 351 1,753 117 797 89 571 2 0.10

24 1,901.45 14.248 -231 1,207 118 535 93 570 7 0.34

25 1,901.01 13.918 -330 1,151 118 471 89 634 5 0.22

26 1,901.38 14.195 277 1,188 118 240 89 595 6 0.28

27 1,901.01 13.918 -277 907 118 248 89 587 5 0.25

28 1,900.93 13.859 -59 881 118 252 89 447 5 0.25

29 1,900.95 13.874 15 980 46 242 156 522 6 0.27

30 1,900.79 13.756 -118 1,033 0 274 199 614 5 0.21

31 1,900.87 13.815 59 1,099 50 267 149 599 4 0.18

TOTALS -328 38,606 3,228 12,719 3,180 19,478 167 7.77

ACRE-FEET -328 76,575 6,403 25,228 6,308 38,635 331

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

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES FISH RELEASE. (2) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM PAN AT TRINITY RIVER HATCHERY

SUMMARY

Release (ACRE-FEET)

Total Power 6,403 Judge Francis Carr Powerplant 38,635

Total River 37,938 Total Release 76,575

Historical Archive and Report Database

Lewiston Lake Daily Operations

Run Date: 9/10/2023
#### Frank J. Lennon Company, Appellant, v. New York Mail Company, Respondent. (Actions Nos. 2-6.)

Determinations affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Scott and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 20191 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ALBIN ALEXANDER TORRES, also known as Alvin Alexander Torres, also known as Albin Alexander Torres

- Menjivar, also known as Albin Torres

Menjybar , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 527

- 1

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Albin Alexander Torres raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Gonzalez

- Longoria , 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), pet ition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16

- 6259)

. In Gonzalez

- Longoria , we held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which defines a crime of violence when incorporated by reference into U.S.S.G.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 21, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-20191 Document: 00513882691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2017No. 16

- 20191

2 § 2L1. 2(b)(1)(C) (201 4 ), is not unconstitutionally vague on its face in light of Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Gonzalez

- Longoria , 831 F.3d at 672. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an ex tension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 16-20191 Document: 00513882691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2017
### §7472. Peer review

The Secretary may use a peer review process to review applications submitted to the Secretary under subpart 2 or subpart 3 of this part.

(Pub. L. 89–10, title VI, §6142, formerly title VII, §7142, as added Pub. L. 107–110, title VII, §701, Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1931; renumbered title VI, §6142, Pub. L. 114–95, title VI, §6001(a), (b)(1), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 2046.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 7472, Pub. L. 89–10, title VII, §7142, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3732, related to training for all teachers program, prior to the general amendment of former subchapter VII of this chapter by Pub. L. 107–110.

A prior section 6142 of Pub. L. 89–10 was classified to section 7315a of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 114–95.
###### Editorial Note on Part 28

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear by T.D. ATF-477, 67 FR 18087 through 18090, Apr. 15, 2002.

#### § 28.63 Bond, Form 5100.12.

Where the proprietor of a manufacturing bonded warehouse desires to withdraw a specific lot of distilled spirits or wines without payment of tax, as authorized in § 28.25, he shall file, as provided in § 28.51, a specific bond, on Form 5100.12, to cover the transportation of the distilled spirits or wines from the bonded premises from which withdrawn to the manufacturing bonded warehouse. The penal sum of such bond shall be not less than the tax prescribed by law on the quantity of distilled spirits or wines to be withdrawn: *Provided,* That the maximum penal sum of such bond shall not exceed $200,000, but in no case shall the penal sum be less than $1,000.

(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1352, as amended, 1380, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5175, 5362))

[25 FR 5734, June 23, 1960. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-62, 44 FR 71721, Dec. 11, 1979; T.D. TTB-8, 69 FR 3832, Jan. 27, 2004; T.D. TTB-146, 82 FR 1134, Jan. 4, 2017]