alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 404.1232 Conduct of review. ( a ) Generally, SSA staff personnel conduct the onsite review. Occasionally, members of the Office of the Inspector General may conduct or participate in the review.
( b ) The review is done when considered necessary by SSA or, if practicable, in response to a State's specific request for a review.
( c ) All pertinent source records prepared by the State or its political subdivisions are reviewed, on site, to verify the wage reports and contribution returns. We may review with the appropriate employees in a subdivision those source records and how the information is gathered, processed, and maintained. We notify the State's Social Security Administrator when we plan to make the review and request her or him to make the necessary arrangements.
( d ) The review is a cooperative effort between SSA and the States to improve the methods for reporting and maintaining wage data to carry out the provisions of the agreement.
[53 FR 32976, Aug. 29, 1988, as amended at 62 FR 38451, July 18, 1997]
#### Alfredo ALVAREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-10842.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

Alfredo Alvarez, Pine Knot, KY, pro se.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alfredo Alvarez, federal prisoner # 30170-077, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction because it was not filed in the district of his incarceration. Alvarez argues that he should be allowed to proceed *649under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 remedy is inadequate to raise his *Bailey v. United States,*516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995) claim. He argues in the alternative that the district court should have construed his petition as an amendment to his initial § 2255 motion.

A § 2241 petition must be filed in the district where the prisoner is incarcerated; as the sentencing court, the district court indeed lacked jurisdiction to entertain Alvarez’s pleading as a § 2241 petition. *Hooker v. Sivley,*187 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir.1999). Alvarez’s pleading challenged his conviction and sentence based on errors that allegedly occurred during the criminal proceedings; these claims should have been brought in a § 2255 proceeding. *Davis v. Fechtel,*150 F.3d 486, 490 (5th Cir.1998). Alvarez has already unsuccessfully sought § 2255 relief, and, therefore, the instant pleading, which raised claims that were or could have been raised in a prior motion, was successive. *United States v. Orozco-Ramirez,*211 F.3d 862, 867 (5th Cir.2000). Alvarez had not received prior permission from us to file a successive § 2255 motion; consequently, the district court was without jurisdiction to construe his petition as a § 2255 motion. *Hooker,*187 F.3d at 681-82. The dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was therefore appropriate.

Finally, Alvarez’s contentions that (1) the district court erred in withdrawing the 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) reference of his case to the magistrate judge; (2) the district court abused its discretion in denying him an evidentiary hearing; (3) his § 2241 petition was supported by facts which demonstrate his entitlement to relief; and (4) the district court abused its discretion in failing to consider the merits of his claims are inadequately briefed and are therefore waived. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).

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.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert L. Hodgkinson, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Dejour Enterprises Ltd.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  October 24, 2007

|                                              |  |                          
|--------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------
|By:                                           |  | /s/  Robert L. Hodgkinson
|                                              |  |                          
|Robert L. Hodgkinson,
Chief Executive Officer
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 HIGH

 11,071

 9,133

 10,271

 8,855

 8,771

 7,147

 7,640

 6,166

 7,035

 7,297

 7,272

 7,926

 9,120

 8,734

 9,624

 9,424

 10,195

 8,456

 8,915

 7,940

 8,433

 9,081

 8,127

 9,294

 10,170

 11,367

 10,393

 10,323

 11,924

 12,962

 2,387

 2,582

 2,712

 1,868

 1,912

 2,210

 2,262

 2,176

 2,615

 2,769

 2,619

 2,954

 2,919

 2,689

 2,567

 2,583

 2,287

 1,870

 1,970

 1,939

 2,724

 3,076

 3,544

 3,980

 4,419

 4,288

 3,103

 2,766

 3,507

 3,690

 5,342

 5,639

 6,172

 5,292

 5,535

 5,007

 4,988

 4,261

 4,472

 4,375

 4,400

 5,145

 5,308

 5,534

 5,442

 5,761

 5,758

 5,027

 5,496

 5,600

 5,967

 6,600

 5,921

 6,383

 6,941

 6,665

 5,961

 6,174

 7,341

 7,730

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 5, 2021

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
§ 266.13 When a new representative payee will be selected. When the Board learns that the interests of the annuitant are not served by continuing payment to the present representative payee or that the present representative payee is no longer able to carry out the payee responsibilities, the Board will undertake to find a new representative payee. The Board will select a new representative payee if the Board finds a preferred payee or if the present payee— ( a ) Has not used the benefit payments on the annuitant's behalf in accordance with the guidelines in this part;
( b ) Has not carried out the other responsibilities described in this part;
( c ) Dies;
( d ) No longer wishes to be representative payee;
( e ) Is unable to manage the benefit payments; or
( f ) Fails to cooperate, within a reasonable time, in providing evidence, accounting, or other information which the Board requests.
Exhibit 32.1

                      Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                              Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Presidential
Realty Corporation (the "Company") for the period ending June 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jeffrey F. Joseph, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or
             15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
             material respects, the financial condition and the results of
             operations of the Company.



                                    Presidential Realty Corporation

                                     By:/s/ Jeffrey F. Joseph
                                     --------------------------
                                     Jeffrey F. Joseph
                                     Chief Executive Officer




         Date: August 12, 2005
### §379v. Safety report disclaimers

With respect to any entity that submits or is required to submit a safety report or other information in connection with the safety of a product (including a product that is a food, drug, device, dietary supplement, or cosmetic) under this chapter (and any release by the Secretary of that report or information), such report or information shall not be construed to reflect necessarily a conclusion by the entity or the Secretary that the report or information constitutes an admission that the product involved malfunctioned, caused or contributed to an adverse experience, or otherwise caused or contributed to a death, serious injury, or serious illness. Such an entity need not admit, and may deny, that the report or information submitted by the entity constitutes an admission that the product involved malfunctioned, caused or contributed to an adverse experience, or caused or contributed to a death, serious injury, or serious illness.

(June 25, 1938, ch. 675, §756, as added Pub. L. 105–115, title IV, §420, Nov. 21, 1997, 111 Stat. 2379.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Nov. 21, 1997, except as otherwise provided, see section 501 of Pub. L. 105–115, set out as an Effective Date of 1997 Amendment note under section 321 of this title.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar CASTANEDA-SALGADO, also known as Guadalupe Guerra, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40902.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*667Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Edgar Castañeda-Salgado, also known as Guadalupe Guerra, appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Castañeda-Salgado raises a Fourth Amendment challenge to the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of his supervised release. As Castaneda-Salgado concedes, such a claim is not ripe for review, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. *See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu,*428 F.3d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). Accordingly, that portion of the appeal must be dismissed.

Castañeda-Salgado also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Castaneda-Salgado’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Castañeda-Salgado contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-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). Castañeda-Salgado properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but raises it here to preserve it for further review.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.

*

 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 ELEV

 123.04

 123.32

 122.72

 123.07

 122.78

 122.67

 123.21

 122.87

 122.64

 122.44

 122.64

 122.87

 123.37

 123.68

 122.85

 123.86

 122.85

 124.11

 122.98

 122.96

 122.72

 123.18

 123.16

 123.09

 122.50

 123.11

 123.76

 123.19

 123.54

 123.28

 123.77

 7,810

 7,941

 7,665

 7,824

 7,692

 7,643

 7,890

 7,733

 7,629

 7,539

 7,629

 7,733

 7,965

 8,111

 7,724

 8,195

 7,724

 8,316

 7,782

 7,773

 7,665

 7,876

 7,866

 7,833

 7,566

 7,843

 8,148

 7,880

 8,045

 7,923

 8,153

STORAGE

+122

+131

-276

+159

-132

-49

+247

-157

-104

-90

+90

+104

+232

+146

-387

+471

-471

+592

-534

-9

-108

+211

-10

-33

-267

+277

+305

-268

+165

-122

+230

CHANGE

4,337

4,330

3,753

3,960

3,812

3,848

4,000

3,795

3,823

3,839

3,932

3,893

4,002

3,963

3,674

4,103

3,631

4,160

3,594

3,858

3,813

3,991

3,877

3,879

3,763

4,006

4,005

3,718

3,964

3,836

4,017

INFLOW

 4,200

 4,185

 3,813

 3,800

 3,807

 3,803

 3,804

 3,804

 3,805

 3,804

 3,802

 3,572

 3,801

 3,808

 3,806

 3,807

 3,808

 3,802

 3,805

 3,805

 3,802

 3,807

 3,802

 3,805

 3,809

 3,805

 3,802

 3,803

 3,803

 3,807

 3,801

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 185

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 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

 45

 45

 45

HATCHERY

 4

 4

 4

 5

 4

 5

 6

 5

 5

 5

 5

 4

 4

 4

 4

 4

 5

 5

 3

 3

 4

 3

 5

 5

 4

 4

 4

 5

 4

 4

 5

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2017 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: August 1, 2017

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +465 121,176 118,487 185 1,395 135

ACRE-FEET +465 240,353 235,019 367 2,767 268

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 235,019

SPILL 367

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 1,468

 2,767

 7,688

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

CANAL

 26

 30

 30

 30

 23

 20

 20

 20

 20

 30

 35

 35

 35

 32

 14

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 16

 30

 30

 41

 40

 12

 0

 0

 29

 42

 50

 740

 1,468

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 239,621
(No. 74-CC-395

#### Matthews Ambulance Service, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 8, 1974.*

Matthews Ambulance Service, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                   |  |                              
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                               |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|                                                   | 
|Warner Chilcott Holdings Company II, Limited       |  | Bermuda                      
|Warner Chilcott Holdings Company III, Limited      |  | Bermuda                      
|Warner Chilcott Acquisition Limited                |  | United Kingdom               
|Chilcott UK Limited                                |  | United Kingdom               
|Millbrook Limited                                  |  | United Kingdom               
|Warner Chilcott Research Laboratories Limited      |  | United Kingdom               
|Warner Chilcott UK Limited                         |  | United Kingdom               
|Warner Chilcott Company, Inc.                      |  | Puerto Rico                  
|Warner Chilcott Intermediate (Ireland) Limited     |  | Republic of Ireland          
|Galen (Chemicals) Limited                          |  | Republic of Ireland          
|Chilcott PR*                                       |  | Republic of Ireland          
|Warner Chilcott Laboratories Ireland Limited*      |  | Republic of Ireland          
|Warner Chilcott Research Ireland Limited*          |  | Republic of Ireland          
|Warner Chilcott Intermediate (Luxembourg) S.à.r.l. |  | Luxembourg                   
|Warner Chilcott Corporation                        |  | Delaware                     
|Warner Chilcott (US), LLC**                        |  | Delaware                     



|* | Each of these entities is in the process of dissolution and is expected to be formally dissolved during the first half of 2009. All assets, rights and liabilities of each entity
were transferred to, and assumed by, Warner Chilcott Company, Inc. prior to December 31, 2008.
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|** | Formerly Warner Chilcott (US), Inc.
|-- | -----------------------------------
J ~~~E~ sr qT ~
s UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY o 

# ~ Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 z z

0

~ 4l1 t PROZ ~~

JUN 2 ?
~~ 'j , OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

### Donald C. Gadbury Manager, National TRU Program Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 Dear Mr. Gadbury: 

### On May 21, 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting concurrence with changes to the DOE's Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) document used for accepting transuranic (TRU) waste for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The EPA concurs with the proposed changes as compatible with EPA regulations at 40 CFR 194.24. The EPA staff reviewed the changes made to Sections 3.4.1 and 4.4.1, and Appendix G as presented in Draft E, Revision 6.5 of the WAC (DOE-WIPP-02-3122). The changes were necessary to address recent modifications to the WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit of the State of New Mexico. In have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422 or Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462.

Sincerely,

Tom Peake, Dircctor Center for Waste Management & Regulations

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable o Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100 % Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper

### cc: Electronic Distribution

Alton Harris, DOE EM Dave Moody, CBFO Vernon Daub, CBFO Ava Holland, CBFO Courtland Fesmire, CBFO Norma Castaneda, CBFO Martin Navarrete, CBFO Dennis Miehls, CBFO Steve Zappe, NMED Allison Pangle, CTAC Wayne Ledford, CTAC
### SUBCHAPTER III—ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
### §955a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 98–146, title II, Nov. 4, 1983, 97 Stat. 949, which provided that persons serving on National Council on the Arts continue until their successors are qualified for office, was omitted as superseded. See section 955(c) of this title as amended by Pub. L. 98–306. Similar provisions were contained in Pub. L. 97–394, title II, Dec. 30, 1982, 96 Stat. 1994.
### §887b. Repealed. Pub. L. 93–380, title IV, §402(c)(3), Aug. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 546

Section, Pub. L. 89–10, title VIII, §809, as added Pub. L. 91–230, title I, §164, Apr. 13, 1970, 84 Stat. 154; amended Pub. L. 93–380, title I, §109(a), Aug. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 513, related to correction education services, providing in subsecs. (a) for grants for research and demonstration projects; (b) for appointment and functions of advisory committees and furnishing of advice and recommendations of Federal officials and other persons and organizations to the Commissioner; and (c) for authorization of $500,000 for fiscal years ending June 30, 1974, and 1975.

Section 109(b) of Pub. L. 93–380 made such authorizations effective on and after July 1, 1974.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 1975, see section 402(c)(3) of Pub. L. 93–380.
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

DAY HIGH

 1,812

 2,664

 2,529

 3,892

 4,611

 3,517

 3,798

 4,492

 3,615

 2,886

 2,406

 1,536

 1,325

 1,506

 1,737

 2,067

 4,147

 4,895

 5,314

 4,274

 2,996

 3,827

 2,769

 3,384

 3,927

 3,917

 3,192

 3,832

 376

 346

 343

 345

 395

 403

 431

 439

 444

 412

 413

 397

 375

 361

 356

 346

 370

 413

 486

 453

 431

 442

 441

 438

 476

 511

 544

 626

 614

 702

 759

 857

 1,138

 964

 1,070

 1,083

 960

 860

 807

 657

 581

 559

 579

 608

 925

 1,234

 1,852

 1,310

 972

 1,140

 1,096

 1,005

 1,219

 1,361

 1,305

 1,435

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2013 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 15, 2013

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER