alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Luis A. VAZQUEZ, Appellant v. William REHNQUIST, Chief Judge, et al., Appellees.

No. 05-5155.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 13, 2005.

Luis A. Vazquez, Pine City, NY, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

Before GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and RANDOLPH and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed April 7, 2005 be affirmed. The district court properly determined that appellant’s claims are barred by judicial immunity. The doctrine of judicial immunity grants judges absolute immunity for damages based on acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, such as the decision of whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari. *See Stump v. Sparkman,*435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); *Turner v. Barry,*856 F.2d 1539 (D.C.Cir.1988).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
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

 10,423

 10,575

 10,030

 8,708

 9,043

 7,718

 5,892

 6,434

 6,323

 6,732

 7,257

 8,022

 8,437

 7,253

 7,662

 7,303

 7,773

 6,314

 6,146

 5,469

 4,990

 4,572

 4,179

 4,727

 5,738

 6,580

 7,497

 7,120

 7,210

 6,336

 6,684

 1,799

 1,760

 1,839

 1,726

 1,802

 1,643

 1,455

 1,411

 1,304

 1,604

 1,614

 2,013

 2,060

 1,459

 1,637

 1,455

 1,616

 995

 1,193

 1,130

 1,268

 1,080

 1,001

 936

 1,126

 1,177

 1,001

 1,008

 1,002

 1,036

 1,126

 4,587

 4,860

 4,880

 4,306

 4,408

 3,807

 3,350

 3,014

 2,901

 3,466

 3,790

 4,346

 4,310

 3,911

 3,966

 3,898

 3,880

 3,276

 2,975

 3,049

 3,100

 2,585

 2,230

 2,150

 2,501

 2,833

 2,747

 2,639

 3,048

 3,086

 3,251

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 2, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
§ 320.25 Hearing of appeal. ( a ) *Manner of conducting hearing.* The hearing shall be informal, fair, and impartial, and shall be conducted in such manner as to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties. The hearing shall not be open to the public.
( b ) *Evidence presented in support of appeal.* ( 1 ) Any party, or his or her representative, shall be afforded full opportunity to present evidence upon any controversial question of fact, orally or in writing or by means of exhibits; to examine and cross-examine witnesses; and to present argument in support of the appeal.
( 2 ) The formal rules of evidence shall not apply; however, the hearings officer may exclude evidence which he or she finds is irrelevant or repetitious. Any evidence excluded by the hearings officer shall be described and that description made part of the record.
( 3 ) If, in the judgment of the hearings officer, evidence not offered is available and is relevant and material to the merits of the claim, the hearings officer may obtain such evidence upon his or her own initiative. If new evidence is obtained after an oral hearing, other than evidence submitted by a party or his representative, the hearings officer shall provide the parties or their representatives with a copy of such evidence. In such event, any party shall have 30 days to submit rebuttal evidence or argument or to request a supplemental hearing to confront and challenge such new evidence. Any party may move for an extension of time to submit rebuttal evidence or argument and the hearings officer may grant the motion upon a showing of good cause.
( c ) *Where no oral hearing required.* Where the hearings officer finds that no factual issues are presented by an appeal, and the only issues raised by the parties are issues concerning the application or interpretation of law, the parties or their representatives shall be afforded full opportunity to submit written argument in support of their position but no oral hearing shall be held.
( d ) *Hearing by telephone or video teleconferencing.* As stated in § 320.22(a), at the discretion of the hearings officer, any hearing required under this part may be conducted in person, by telephone conference call, or by video teleconferencing. The hearings officer may determine the hearing should be conducted by telephone conference call or video teleconferencing if use of these methods would be more efficient than conducting an in person hearing and the hearings officer does not determine that there is a circumstance in the particular case preventing the use of these methodologies to conduct the hearing.
[Board Order 58-142, 23 FR 9090, Nov. 22, 1958, as amended at 56 FR 65681, Dec. 18, 1991; 67 FR 77157, Dec. 17, 2002; 71 FR 55284, Sept. 22, 2006]
###### Editorial Note on Part 646

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 646 appear by T.D. ATF-487, 68 FR 4753, Jan. 24, 2003.

#### § 646.142 Territorial extent.

The provisions of the regulations in this part apply in the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/gpo5331 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
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

 1,849

 2,276

 3,755

 3,862

 2,699

 4,203

 3,685

 3,387

 2,641

 1,906

 1,588

 1,322

 2,777

 4,031

 5,120

 5,179

 6,979

 8,355

 9,916

 10,826

 9,666

 9,243

 7,515

 7,268

 5,975

 7,015

 6,025

 7,175

 6,958

 7,285

 8,931

 228

 270

 297

 331

 358

 384

 442

 427

 417

 442

 395

 362

 438

 473

 673

 638

 866

 972

 1,029

 1,063

 1,291

 1,224

 1,217

 1,263

 1,407

 1,535

 1,746

 1,741

 1,592

 1,463

 1,413

 537

 753

 981

 1,013

 1,154

 1,200

 1,214

 1,177

 1,122

 1,010

 903

 802

 973

 1,306

 1,853

 2,308

 3,261

 3,883

 4,303

 4,264

 4,268

 4,070

 3,390

 3,383

 3,361

 3,264

 3,193

 3,407

 3,717

 3,770

 3,811

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 2, 2005

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### § 10.508 May relocation expenses be paid for an employee who would need to move to accept an offer of reemployment?

If possible, the employer should offer suitable reemployment in the location where the employee currently resides. If this is not practical, the employer may offer suitable reemployment at the employee's former duty station or other location. Where the distance between the location of the offered job and the location where the employee currently resides is at least 50 miles, OWCP may pay such relocation expenses as are considered reasonable and necessary if the employee has been terminated from the agency's employment rolls and would incur relocation expenses by accepting the offered reemployment. OWCP may also pay such relocation expenses when the new employer is other than a Federal employer. OWCP will notify the employee that relocation expenses are payable if it makes a finding that the job is suitable. To determine whether a relocation expense is reasonable and necessary, OWCP shall use as a guide the Federal travel regulations for permanent changes of duty station.
TS-EMLA10/20/30

Attachment #3

Pt. 1, Sec. B

CAS Inventory Expert Servic e Reports and Chemical Struct ures of the New Chemical

Substances

The following page gives the CAS Inventory Expert Service (IES) Reports on the new

chemical substances. The chemical structures of the compounds are also provided.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY DWIGHT O. SEEGMILLER**

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Hills Bancorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dwight O. Seegmiller, Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.            The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 7,691

 7,080

 6,445

 6,191

 5,340

 4,378

 3,943

 3,987

 3,610

 3,530

 3,288

 3,365

 3,515

 3,549

 3,618

 4,230

 3,811

 3,769

 3,939

 4,255

 4,423

 4,726

 5,012

 4,903

 5,099

 5,560

 5,527

 5,607

 5,528

 6,037

 3,295

 2,823

 2,715

 2,309

 1,816

 1,606

 1,459

 1,310

 1,582

 1,449

 1,345

 1,367

 1,387

 1,485

 1,514

 1,580

 1,459

 1,318

 1,294

 1,413

 1,348

 1,284

 1,445

 1,548

 1,569

 2,118

 2,506

 2,318

 2,440

 2,649

 5,334

 4,945

 4,400

 4,154

 3,534

 2,897

 2,565

 2,676

 2,649

 2,514

 2,324

 2,230

 2,248

 2,201

 2,266

 2,718

 2,491

 2,338

 2,424

 2,635

 2,687

 3,101

 3,470

 3,515

 3,610

 4,242

 4,147

 3,913

 3,934

 4,075

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 5, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5452 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5452

To provide a duplication of benefits fix for Sandy CDBG-DR recipients, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 17, 2019

 Mr. King of New York (for himself, Miss Rice of New York, Mr. Zeldin, 
 and Mr. Suozzi) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide a duplication of benefits fix for Sandy CDBG-DR recipients, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sandy Duplication of Benefits 
Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. DUPLICATION OF BENEFITS.

    (a) Amendment.--Section 1210(a)(3) of the FAA Reauthorization Act 
of 2018 (Public Law 115-254; 132 Stat. 3186) is amended by striking 
``January 1, 2016'' and inserting ``October 1, 2012''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of the FAA Reauthorization Act 
of 2018 (Public Law 115-254; 132 Stat. 3186).
                                 <all>
```
#### § 323.2 Definition of nongovernmental plan for unemployment or sickness insurance.

A nongovernmental plan for unemployment or sickness insurance is a benefit plan, program or policy that is in the nature of insurance and is designed and established by an employer for the purpose of supplementing the benefits that an employee of such employer may receive under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act during a period of unemployment or sickness. A nongovernmental plan may be established by labor-management agreement or by unilateral employer action. Payments under such plans are referred to as supplemental unemployment benefits (SUB pay) or supplemental sickness benefits, rather than as wages, salary or pay for time lost, because their inherent nature is to supplement benefit payments under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act rather than to replace or duplicate such payments.
### §903. Application of State law

No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.

(Pub. L. 91–513, title II, §708, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1284.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title II of Pub. L. 91–513, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1242, and is popularly known as the "Controlled Substances Act". For complete classification of title II to the Code, see second paragraph of Short Title note set out under section 801 of this title and Tables.
#### § 209.14 Report of separation allowances subject to tier II taxation.

For any employee who is paid a separation payment, the employer must file a report of the amount of the payment. This report shall be submitted to the Board on or before the last day of the month following the end of the calendar quarter in which payment is made. The report is to be prepared in accordance with prescribed instructions and filed in accordance with § 209.4 of this part.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3220-0173)

[63 FR 32614, June 15, 1998]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. John BRADSHAW, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10194.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Filed Feb. 17, 2006.

Karyn Kenny, Esq., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mario Valencia, Henderson, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

John Bradshaw appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 63-month sentence imposed for conspiracy, identity theft, production of five or more unauthorized identifications, possession of stolen mail, possession of counterfeit security of an organization, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1028(a)(1) and (7), 1708, 513(a), and 2.

Bradshaw’s attorney has filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), on the ground that the appeal presents no arguable issues. Bradshaw has not submitted a pro se supplemental brief.

Because our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), indicates that Bradshaw knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered knowingly and voluntarily).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *168courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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

 226

 193

 187

 186

 181

 184

 185

 185

 177

 170

 149

 140

 132

 155

 185

 145

 151

 200

 167

 189

 193

 190

 174

 176

 178

 171

 176

 178

 180

 175

 168

 171

 170

 173

 158

 162

 148

 134

 106

 96

 92

 92

 98

 106

 108

 115

 115

 125

 130

 142

 129

 120

 120

 116

 119

 126

 194

 184

 178

 180

 178

 178

 174

 176

 162

 152

 134

 123

 116

 119

 139

 127

 128

 155

 145

 161

 162

 166

 156

 158

 156

 152

 152

 158

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 1, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### §§ 365.141-365.148 [Reserved]
### §360qq. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–362, title VI, §601(a)(2)(A), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3285

Section, act June 25, 1938, ch. 675, §540, formerly act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §540, formerly §360D, as added Pub. L. 90–602, §2(3), Oct. 18, 1968, 82 Stat. 1185; renumbered §540 and amended Pub. L. 101–629, §19(a)(1)(B), (3), (4), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4529, 4530; Pub. L. 103–80, §4(a)(2), Aug. 13, 1993, 107 Stat. 779, related to annual report on administration of electronic product radiation control program.
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

 21,004

 22,315

 19,651

 19,573

 20,086

 20,832

 22,441

 24,795

 22,762

 24,142

 22,387

 22,722

 24,319

 24,340

 23,972

 25,456

 26,939

 22,414

 20,939

 22,705

 21,924

 21,489

 21,092

 21,077

 21,863

 24,210

 24,540

 26,122

 26,222

 24,381

 11,422

 14,064

 13,263

 12,971

 12,822

 13,996

 13,844

 15,775

 15,447

 14,925

 13,313

 13,578

 14,054

 14,071

 14,304

 14,999

 14,846

 15,641

 14,506

 14,384

 15,404

 14,539

 13,526

 13,783

 10,258

 13,473

 13,884

 14,350

 14,205

 15,361

 16,719

 18,461

 17,577

 17,342

 16,942

 17,270

 18,761

 19,658

 18,918

 18,592

 17,688

 17,751

 18,588

 19,226

 19,513

 19,973

 20,968

 19,534

 18,634

 19,126

 18,431

 17,398

 16,980

 17,078

 17,242

 18,057

 18,239

 19,537

 20,093

 20,727

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 7, 2013

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO TOP IN SUISUN BAY
Exhibit 99.1
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 (LOGO)
    
    (LOGO)
 CONTACTS:
 L-1 Identity Solutions
    
    Safran PressDoni Fordyce
    
    Catherine MALEK+1 203-504-1109
    
    +33 (0)1 40 60 80 28dfordyce@L1ID.com
    
    catherine.malek@safran.frSafran Investor RelationsPascal BANTEGNIE+33(0)1 40 60 80 45pascal.bantegnie@safran.frAntoine-Pierre de Grammont+33 (0)1 40 60 80 47antoine-pierre.degrammont@safran.fr
 L-1 Identity Solutions and Safran Receive Approval
for the Pending Merger Transaction from the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
 Merger Expected to Close within Five Business Days
 STAMFORD, CT. and PARIS, France  July 19, 2011




---



##### 



About L-1 Identity Solutions
 www.L1ID.com
 About Safran
 www.safran-group.com
 L-1 Forward Looking Statements
### §7351d. Choice of participation

#### (a) In general

If a local educational agency is eligible for funding under both this subpart and subpart 1, such local educational agency may receive funds under either this subpart or subpart 1 for a fiscal year, but may not receive funds under both subparts for such fiscal year.

#### (b) Notification

A local educational agency eligible for funding under both this subpart and subpart 1 shall notify the Secretary and the State educational agency under which of such subparts the local educational agency intends to receive funds for a fiscal year by a date that is established by the Secretary for the notification.

(Pub. L. 89–10, title V, §5225, as added Pub. L. 114–95, title V, §5003(8), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 2044.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5225 of Pub. L. 89–10 was classified to section 7223d of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 114–95.

Prior sections 7352 and 7353 were omitted in the general amendment of former subchapter VI of this chapter by Pub. L. 107–110.

Section 7352, Pub. L. 89–10, title VI, §6302, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3711, related to administrative authority.

Section 7353, Pub. L. 89–10, title VI, §6303, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3711, related to local applications for allocations of funds.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 10, 2015, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 114–95, set out as an Effective Date of 2015 Amendment note under section 6301 of this title.
§ 30.411 What happens if the opinion of the physician selected by OWCP differs from the opinion of the physician selected by the employee? ( a ) If one medical opinion holds more probative value than the other, OWCP will base its determination of coverage on the medical opinion with the greatest probative value. A difference in medical opinion sufficient to be considered a conflict only occurs when two reports of virtually equal weight and rationale reach opposing conclusions.
( b ) If a conflict exists between the medical opinion of the employee's physician and the medical opinion of a second opinion physician, an OWCP medical adviser or consultant, or a physician submitting an impairment evaluation that meets the criteria set out in § 30.905 of this part, OWCP shall appoint a third physician who conforms to the standards regarding conflicts of interest adopted by OWCP to make an examination or an impairment evaluation. This is called a referee examination or a referee impairment evaluation. OWCP will select a physician who is qualified in the appropriate specialty and who has had no prior connection with the case. Also, a case file may be sent to a physician who conforms to the standards regarding conflicts of interest adopted by OWCP for a referee medical review where there is no need for an actual examination, or where the employee is deceased.
( c ) If the initial referee examination or referee impairment evaluation is disrupted by someone accompanying the employee, OWCP will schedule another examination or impairment evaluation with a different qualified physician who conforms to the standards regarding conflicts of interest adopted by OWCP. The employee will not be entitled to have anyone else present at the subsequent referee examination or referee impairment evaluation unless OWCP decides that exceptional circumstances exist. For example, where a hearing-impaired employee needs an interpreter, the presence of an interpreter would be allowed.
( d ) OWCP may administratively close the claim and suspend adjudication of any pending matters if the employee refuses to attend a referee medical examination.
[71 FR 78534, Dec. 29, 2006, as amended at 84 FR 3052, Feb. 8, 2019]