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

		


 #$%#

&'
%(
"# )*#

+,
- *.**)#

/'- *").# 

	












0&$-$10$
10$&2%

 34
 
)"*!.)5

,##

          

$$6	%

7
%

7


$10$
10$&2%

&,







,
88%$9
:;$9<%4
%
'
8

88''
=".8
:,;
<>





4?
.%# %@$
1:


;34<95'
878$9
'8A%
;<









@%349

''	('
?
.%# %
4
@


;''	('
<




 
,
''	('
%

34(
$9

B,'

8


*".)#!)


Case 20-34576-KLP Doc 109 Filed 04/05/21 Entered 04/05/21 15:05:50 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 5
;<
$9'

8,8


(


88
(4$98C)#/


('
@

,
''
8''
@8(






 34

 8 B




(
$9>





8BD
,,%
8(

@
%4



#
 +
4%
4%(

$94%


4%(
88'',
=".8
:,

'

8(
'@,%@

74

'
%@@%
:

7


8
>


 +34
$9,
B8$9>

"
 + 8(
42%

(%@'
%(

(8

8 8' @ ,%  77

7
834E

4
:,
4
84@,
'4,,






@34E4
:,

7
8>

*
 /(@
%82,74

:,&%



(%@'
%
:,&*#"%41	0$3%
2

4887

84'',

4>


!
 +:,82
,



7


Case 20-34576-KLP Doc 109 Filed 04/05/21 Entered 04/05/21 15:05:50 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 5
              

C

:,?(

1:8-

F  F  
    

	






 !" "

		


 #$%#

&'
%(
"# )*#

+,
- *.**)#

/'- *").# 

	





	(-

  FF  	      

&4	

8%$B

#. #

G
&
1%$B


 #


81%5

*#*$
5'&

G
%	"

			



5
&8%048
,7


2





"

*".)#!)


Apr 5 2021 /s/ Keith L Phillips

Entered On Docket: Apr 5 2021

Case 20-34576-KLP Doc 109 Filed 04/05/21 Entered 04/05/21 15:05:50 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 5
	

	

%$B


:&:5

####$




&'
%	"# 

G
&
1%$B



81%5

*#*$
5'&

G
%	"

Case 20-34576-KLP Doc 109 Filed 04/05/21 Entered 04/05/21 15:05:50 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 5




			 	

#3H3. 3?	##!#

#*3H3. # !"

#*
:'!!  	+!! 	*!

#:!*! 	+!*!	!*!###.

#!3H3. 1&.

#":!*! 	+!*!+!*! 

!

*".)#!)


Case 20-34576-KLP Doc 109 Filed 04/05/21 Entered 04/05/21 15:05:50 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 5
###### Editorial Note on Part 71

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 71 appear by T.D. ATF-414, 64 FR 49084, Sept. 10, 1999and T.D. ATF-463, 66 FR 42734, 42735, Aug. 15, 2001.

#### § 71.68 [Reserved]
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

 39,889

 39,634

 39,390

 39,175

 38,929

 38,657

 38,394

 38,046

 37,670

 37,350

 36,843

 36,478

 36,191

 35,894

 35,664

 35,518

 35,349

 35,196

 34,950

 34,663

 34,414

 34,117

 33,890

 33,718

 33,550

 33,383

 33,205

 32,996

 32,815

 32,581

 62,264

 62,035

 61,782

 61,529

 61,223

 61,031

 60,767

 60,672

 60,564

 60,415

 60,450

 60,277

 60,086

 59,914

 59,663

 59,343

 59,004

 58,679

 58,454

 58,271

 58,023

 57,834

 57,552

 57,223

 56,902

 56,575

 56,254

 55,975

 55,661

 55,435

STORAGE - A.F. 

 102,153

 101,669

 101,172

 100,704

 100,152

 99,688

 99,161

 98,718

 98,234

 97,765

 97,293

 96,755

 96,277

 95,808

 95,327

 94,861

 94,353

 93,875

 93,404

 92,934

 92,437

 91,951

 91,442

 90,941

 90,452

 89,958

 89,459

 88,971

 88,476

 88,016

477

489

454

460

466

473

499

545

564

562

559

530

512

480

503

456

489

510

49

57

58

30

83

84

584

757

555

912

740

721

211

245

203

224

188

239

233

322

320

326

321

259

271

244

260

221

233

269

389

857

807

1,155

21

-87

-133

-206

1,860

975

-61

67

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2015 FULL NATURAL FLOW AT NEW MELONES DAM RUN DATE: 12/04/2015

TOTALS -14,665 10,233

* October 1, 20,297

 319.3

 319.7

 320.1

 320.6

 321.0

 321.4

 321.9

 322.5

 323.2

 323.8

 324.5

 325.0

 325.5

 326.0

 326.5

 326.9

 327.4

 327.9

 328.7

 330.4

 332.0

 334.3

 334.3

 334.2

 333.9

 333.5

 337.2

 339.1

 339.0

 339.1

DONNELLS

RES

BEARDSLEY

RES

2014 TO DATE

NEW

MELONES

INFLOW

C.F.S

NATURAL

RIVER

C.F.S

ACCUM *

FULL

NATURAL

1000 A.F.

RESERVOIR

TOTAL

-528

-484

-497

-468

-552

-464

-527

-443

-484

-469

-472

-538

-478

-469

-481

-466

-508

-478

-471

-470

-497

-486

-509

-501

-489

-494

-499

-488

-495

-460

CHANGE

A.F. C.F.S.

-266

-244

-251

-236

-278

-234

-266

-223

-244

-236

-238

-271

-241

-236

-243

-235

-256

-241

-237

-237

-251

-245

-257

-253

-247

-249

-252

-246

-250

-232
November 2023

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

ACRE-FEET INFLOW FOLSOM C. F. S.

DAY ELEV IN LAKE CHANGE C.F.S. SOUTH POWER SPILL HATCHERY (1)

7,810

1 123.16 7,866 56 2,138 37 25 1,986 61 1

2 122.88 7,737 -129 2,031 40 27 1,967 61 1

3 123.08 7,829 92 2,159 40 27 1,984 61 1

4 123.44 7,998 169 2,157 40 26 1,944 61 1

5 123.42 7,988 -10 2,119 31 26 2,004 61 2

6 123.51 8,031 43 2,154 20 26 1,998 88 0

7 123.34 7,951 -80 2,120 20 26 2,003 110 1

8 122.43 7,535 -416 1,854 20 25 1,908 110 1

9 122.75 7,679 144 2,157 20 24 1,929 110 1

10 123.45 8,003 324 2,350 20 24 2,033 110 0

11 123.93 8,228 225 2,197 20 24 1,929 110 1

12 123.79 8,162 -66 2,041 20 24 1,919 110 1

13 123.80 8,167 5 2,064 7 24 1,919 110 1

14 123.48 8,017 -150 1,995 0 23 1,937 110 1

15 123.02 7,800 -217 1,929 0 22 1,906 110 0

16 123.69 8,115 315 2,173 0 15 1,889 109 1

17 123.33 7,946 -169 1,997 0 290 1,682 110 0

18 123.35 7,956 10 2,084 0 506 1,458 110 5

19 123.70 8,120 164 2,189 0 497 1,498 110 1

20 123.47 8,012 -108 2,057 0 496 1,504 110 1

21 123.40 7,979 -33 2,092 0 495 1,504 110 0

22 122.93 7,760 -219 1,982 0 489 1,493 110 0

23 122.77 7,688 -72 2,058 0 822 1,161 110 1

24 122.60 7,611 -77 2,069 0 1,008 989 110 1

25 122.95 7,769 158 2,118 0 1,014 913 110 1

26 123.63 8,087 318 2,196 0 1,021 904 110 1

27 123.70 8,120 33 1,965 0 1,135 702 110 1

28 123.26 7,913 -207 1,830 0 1,315 508 110 1

29 123.11 7,843 -70 1,978 10 1,666 226 110 1

30 123.65 8,097 254 2,130 15 1,874 2 110 1

TOTALS 287 62,383 360 13,016 45,799 3,032 29

ACRE-FEET 287 123,737 714 25,817 90,842 6,014 58

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

(1) EVAPORATION RECORDS TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

SUMMARY 

Release (ACRE-FEET)

Power 25,817 Folsom South Canal 714

Spill 90,842 Hatchery 6,014

Total = 123,387

Historical Archive and Report Database

Lake Natoma Daily Operations

Run Date: 12/10/2023
§ 1002.260 What pension benefit plans are covered under USERRA? ( a ) The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) defines an employee pension benefit plan as a plan that provides retirement income to employees, or defers employee income to a period extending to or beyond the termination of employment. Any such plan maintained by the employer or employers is covered under USERRA. USERRA also covers certain pension plans not covered by ERISA, such as those sponsored by a State, government entity, or church for its employees.
( b ) USERRA does not cover pension benefits under the Federal Thrift Savings Plan; those benefits are covered under 5 U.S.C. 8432b.
(No. 74-CC-147

#### Texaco, Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed December 17, 1973.*

Texaco, Inc., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          55,193
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               25,045,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                   283,666
<INVENTORY>                                 47,033,471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            73,250,106
<PP&E>                                       3,984,551
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,787,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             158,538,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,418,470
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,506
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,960,552
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               158,538,878
<SALES>                                     77,705,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            77,705,273
<CGS>                                       47,177,562
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               65,922,108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,241,839
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,798,844
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,742,482
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,968,130
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,774,352
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                459,844
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,234,196
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32


</TABLE>
§ 10.500 What are the basic rules governing continuing receipt of compensation benefits and return to work? ( a ) Benefits are available only while the effects of a work-related condition continue. Compensation for wage loss due to disability is available only for any periods during which an employee's work-related medical condition prevents him or her from earning the wages earned before the work-related injury. For example, an employee is not entitled to compensation for any wage-loss claimed on a CA-7 to the extent that evidence contemporaneous with the period claimed on a CA-7 establishes that an employee had medical work restrictions in place; that light duty within those work restrictions was available; and that the employee was previously notified in writing that such duty was available. Similarly, an employee receiving continuing periodic payments for disability was not prevented from earning the wages earned before the work-related injury if the evidence establishes that the employing agency had offered, in accordance with OWCP procedures, a temporary light duty assignment within the employee's work restrictions. (The penalty provision of 5 U.S.C. 8106(c)(2) will not be imposed on such assignments under this paragraph.)
( b ) Each disabled employee is obligated to perform such work as he or she can. OWCP's goal is to return each disabled employee to work as soon as he or she is medically able. In determining what work qualifies under 5 U.S.C. 8115 for determining the wage-earning capacity for a particular disabled employee, OWCP considers all relevant factors, including the employee's current physical limitations, whether the work is available within the employee's demonstrated commuting area and the employee's qualifications to perform such work.
( c ) A disabled employee who refuses to seek or accept suitable employment within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 8106(c)(2) is not entitled to compensation.
( d ) Payment of medical benefits is available for all treatment necessary due to a work-related medical condition.
### §3917. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–66, title II, §2141(a), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 731

Section, Pub. L. 98–377, title I, §107, as added Pub. L. 99–159, title II, §201, Nov. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 896; amended Pub. L. 103–437, §7(c), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4588, related to developing and annual update of a strategic plan for science and engineering education.
#### § 220.182 Before a disability annuity is stopped.

Before the Board stops a disability annuity, it will give the annuitant a chance to explain why it should not do so.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1268

JOEY JURGENSEN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MICHAEL R. POMPEO, Secretary, U.S. Department of State, In his official capacity; CHAD WOLF , Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, In his official capacity , Defendants

- Appellees

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T. S. Ellis, III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv
- 01130

- TSE

- TCB )

Submitted : October 28, 2019 Decided: November 20, 2019

Before AGEE, FLOYD, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Eric S. Montalvo, Ricardo J.A. Pitts

- Wiley, Astrid Lockwood, THE FEDERAL PRACTICE GROUP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Director, Timothy M. Belsan, Chief , Edward S. White, Senior Counsel, National Security & Affirmative Litigation Unit, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joey Jurgensen appeals the district court’s order denying h er motion for attorneys’
fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (2012) because Jurgensen was not the prevailing party. We affirm. The district court’s decision to grant or deny reimbursement for attorneys’ fees is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. Priestly v. Astrue , 651 F.3d 410, 415 (4th Cir. 2011). Whether a party is a prevailing party, however, is reviewed de novo. Goldstein v. Moatz , 445 F.3d 747, 751 (4th Cir. 2006). We conclude that the district court properly found that Jurgensen was not a prevailing party entitled to att orneys’ fees. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jurgensen v. Pompeo , No. 1:17

- cv
- 01130

- TSE

- TCB (E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
(No. 6198

#### Bell and Howell Schools, Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed February 9, 1973.*

Bell and Howell Schools, Inc., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

*192Per Curiam.
#### § 771.70 Adjudication based upon written submissions.

The licensee or permittee may waive the hearing before the administrative law judge and stipulate that the matter will be adjudicated by the Director of Industry Operations based upon written submissions. Written submissions may include stipulations of law or facts, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, briefs, or any other documentary material. The pleadings, together with the written submissions of both the licensee or permittee and the attorney for the Government, shall constitute the record on which the initial decision shall be based. The election to contest the denial or revocation without a hearing under this section does not affect the licensee's or permittee's right to appeal to the Director pursuant to § 555.79 of this chapter or to the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the licensee or permittee resides or has his principle place of business pursuant to § 555.80 of this chapter.
(No. 73-CC-304

#### Frank Cankar, Jr., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed June 20, 1973.*

Frank Cankar, Jr., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices 

# Order

February 20, 2015

150982

- 3 & (24)

LINDA COWAN, Personal Representative of

the ESTATE OF WILLIAM DURST,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150982

COA: 325777

Oakland CC: 2014

- 138650

- NH

FARID FATA, M.D.

, and MICHIGAN

HEMATOLOGY ONCOLOGY, PC,

Defendants

- Appellants,

and

ELAYNE ARTERBERY, M.D., MICHIGAN

RADIATION ASSOCIATES, PLLC

, and

CRITTENTON CANCER CENTER,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

W ILLIAM WESP and SUZANNE ROSE WESP,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 150983

COA: 325793

Oakland CC: 2014

- 142179

- NH

FARID FATA, M.D.

, and MICHIGAN

HEMATOLOGY ONCOLOGY, PC,

Defendants

- Appellants,

and

CRITTENTON HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER

AND CRITTENTON CANCER CENTER, f/k/a

CRITTENTON KARMANOS HEALTH

SERVICES AND CRITTENTON

- DMC HEALTH

SERVICES,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 20, 2015

t0217 2

Clerk On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2015 orders of the Court of Appeals is

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented

should be re viewed by this Court.
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

 452

 445

 501

 481

 478

 504

 492

 486

 480

 468

 481

 497

 499

 543

 477

 438

 461

 462

 493

 469

 490

 491

 512

 496

 499

 504

 443

 373

 398

 405

 415

 392

 373

 399

 416

 428

 442

 443

 433

 444

 402

 407

 444

 458

 442

 292

 287

 421

 415

 424

 311

 316

 471

 456

 410

 469

 431

 319

 276

 266

 293

 286

 420

 399

 453

 446

 458

 467

 465

 456

 460

 439

 440

 463

 477

 477

 384

 346

 440

 430

 456

 386

 364

 481

 481

 456

 485

 474

 351

 321

 325

 352

 362

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 16, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 13 (O'NEILL)
#### § 10.103 How and when is a claim for permanent impairment filed?

Form CA-7 is used to claim compensation for impairment to a body part covered under the schedule established by 5 U.S.C. 8107. All such notices should be submitted electronically wherever feasible to facilitate processing of such claims. All employers that currently do not have such capability should create such a method by December 31, 2012. If Form CA-7 has already been filed to claim disability compensation, an employee may file a claim for such impairment by sending a letter to OWCP which specifies the nature of the benefit claimed. OWCP may create a form specifically for schedule award claims; if that form is created, only that form may be used to file a claim under 5 U.S.C. 8107.
### §9571. Interagency data sources and formats

The Secretary, in consultation with the Director, shall ensure that the Department and the Institute use common sources of data in standardized formats.

(Pub. L. 107–279, title I, §181, Nov. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 1971.)
#### § 220.185 The Board may conduct a review to find out whether the annuitant continues to be disabled.

After the Board finds that the annuitant is disabled, the Board must evaluate the annuitant's impairment(s) from time to time to determine if the annuitant is still eligible for disability cash benefits. The Board calls this evaluation a continuing disability review. The Board may begin a continuing disability review for any number of reasons including the annuitant's failure to follow the provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act or these regulations. When the Board begins such a review, the Board will notify the annuitant that the Board is reviewing the annuitant's eligibility for disability benefits, why the Board is reviewing the annuitant's eligibility, that in medical reviews the medical improvement review standard will apply, that the Board's review could result in the termination of the annuitant's benefits, and that the annuitant has the right to submit medical and other evidence for the Board's consideration during the continuing disability review. In doing a medical review the Board will develop a complete medical history of at least the preceding 12 months in any case in which a determination is made that the annuitant is no longer under a disability. If this review shows that the Board should stop payment of cash benefits, the Board will notify the annuitant in writing and give the annuitant an opportunity to appeal. In § 220.186 the Board describes those events that may prompt it to review whether the annuitant continues to be disabled.
---

Exhibit 99.7



Consent of Independent Registered Chartered
Accountants

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement No. 333-128128 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-167567
on Form F-10 and to the use of our reports dated March 22, 2012 relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Silver Wheaton Corp. and the effectiveness
of Silver Wheaton Corp.s internal control over financial reporting appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Silver Wheaton Corp. for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Independent Registered
Chartered AccountantsVancouver, CanadaMarch 27, 2012

---
#### Angela HARPER; et al., Plaintiffs, Angela Harper, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO HOLDINGS INC.; Pelican Cigar Co.; Wal-Mart Stores Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Schlesingers Wholesalers & Automotive Cigarette Service Inc.; Wal-Mart Louisiana LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-30657.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided July 17, 2006.

Jennifer Ann Jones, Jones Law Firm, Cameron, LA, Kenneth E. Badon, The Ba-don Law Firm, Clayton Arthur Larsh Davis, James D. Cain, Lundy & Davis, *396Lake Charles, LA, for Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Appellant.

Dennis Leo Murphy, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, James R. Nieset, Plauche, Smith & Nieset, Lake Charles, LA, Sean Patrick Costello, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, David Alexander Young, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, John E. McElligott, Jr., Davidson, Meaux, Sonnier & McElligott, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED. *See*5th Cir R. 47.6.

*

 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.