alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### **CHAPTER 82—AFGHANISTAN FREEDOM SUPPORT**

Sec.
7501.
Definition.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—ECONOMIC AND DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR AFGHANISTAN

7511.
Declaration of policy.
7512.
Purposes of assistance.
7513.
Authorization of assistance.
7514.
Coordination of assistance.
7515.
Sense of Congress regarding promoting cooperation in opium producing areas.
7516.
Administrative provisions.
7517.
Relationship to other authority.
7518.
Authorization of appropriations.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—MILITARY ASSISTANCE FOR AFGHANISTAN AND CERTAIN OTHER FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

7531 to 7538. Omitted.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

7551.
Requirement to comply with procedures relating to the prohibition on assistance to drug traffickers.
7552.
Sense of Congress regarding protecting Afghanistan's President.
7553.
Donor contributions to Afghanistan and reports.
7554.
Reports.
7555.
Formulation of long-term strategy for Afghanistan.
7556.
Benchmarks to evaluate the progress being made toward the transition of security responsibilities for Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan.
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

 316

 314

 337

 368

 386

 382

 513

 395

 370

 378

 388

 309

 314

 338

 351

 334

 408

 631

 1,073

 1,401

 1,288

 1,194

 1,232

 1,175

 654

 567

 518

 701

 487

 664

 270

 269

 270

 273

 259

 257

 255

 252

 249

 249

 246

 240

 237

 238

 238

 242

 244

 247

 251

 252

 260

 251

 250

 250

 242

 238

 229

 226

 222

 215

 281

 280

 287

 298

 297

 287

 305

 276

 269

 268

 270

 259

 258

 260

 261

 273

 285

 313

 397

 463

 470

 404

 460

 462

 365

 311

 288

 300

 286

 290

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2015 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 1, 2015

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### Aimee Appietto, Respondent, v. Simon Patino et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, TJntermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
§ 404.1220 Identification numbers. ( a ) *State and local governments.* When a State submits a modification to its agreement under section 218 of the Act, which extends coverage to periods prior to 1987, SSA will assign a special identification number to each political subdivision included in that modification. SSA will send the State a Form SSA-214-CD, “Notice of Identifying Number,” to inform the State of the special identification number(s). The special number will be used for reporting the pre-1987 wages to SSA. The special number will also be assigned to an interstate instrumentality if pre-1987 coverage is obtained and SSA will send a Form SSA-214-CD to the interstate instrumentality to notify it of the number assigned.
( b ) *Coverage group number for coverage groups.* If a State's agreement provides coverage for a State or a political subdivision based on designated proprietary or governmental functions, the State shall furnish a list of those groups. The list shall identify each designated function and the title and business address of the official responsible for filing each designated group's wage report. SSA assigns a coverage group number to each designated group based on the information furnished in the list.
( c ) *Unit numbers for payroll record units.* SSA assigns, at a State's request, unit numbers to payroll record units within a State or political subdivision. When a State requests separate payroll record unit numbers, it must furnish the following: ( 1 ) The name of each payroll record unit for the coverage group; and
( 2 ) The title and business address of the official responsible for each payroll unit.
( d ) *Unit numbers where contribution amounts are limited—for wages paid prior to 1987.* An agreement, or modification of an agreement, may provide for the computation of contributions as prescribed in § 404.1256 for some employees of a political subdivision. In this situation, SSA assigns special unit numbers to the political subdivision to identify those employees. SSA does not assign a special unit number to a political subdivision in which the contributions for all employees are computed as prescribed in § 404.1256.
( e ) *Use.* For wages paid prior to 1987, the employer shall show the appropriate SSA-issued identifying number, including any coverage group or payroll record unit number, on records, reports, returns, and claims to report wages, adjustments, and contributions.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0960-0425) [53 FR 32976, Aug. 29, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 42433, Aug. 16, 1995; 64 FR 33016, June 21, 1999; 66 FR 28836, May 25, 2001]
| Name                                | Jurisdiction of Incorporation/Organization |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| MWI Veterinary Supply Co.           | Idaho                                      |
| Memorial Pet Care, Inc.             | Idaho                                      |
| Securos Europe, GmbH                | Germany                                    |
| Centaur Services Limited            | United Kingdom                             |
| MWI Supply (UK Holdings) Limited    | United Kingdom                             |
| MWI Supply (UK) Limited             | United Kingdom                             |
| MWI Supply (UK Acquisition) Limited | United Kingdom                             |
| Labpak Limited                      | United Kingdom                             |
| Somervet Limited                    | United Kingdom                             |
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 10, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00660

- CR

EX PARTE Matthew JACKSON

Original Habeas Corp us Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

On October 23, 2015 , relator filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus , followed by

a supplemental petition on October 30, 2015 . The court ha s considered relator’s petition s and is

of the opinion that relator is not entit led to the relief sought. Accordingly, relator’s original and

supplemental petition s for writ of habeas corpus are DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION

. The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on December 10, 2015

.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 10th day of December, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle , Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014CR0148, styled The State of Texas v. Matthew Jamal Jackson

, pending in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.
(No. 7087

#### Doctors Memorial Hospital, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 16, 1973.*

Doctors Memorial Hospital, Claimant, pro se.

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

Per Curiam.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A1746. IN THE INTEREST OF N. O., et al., CHILDREN (MOTHER).

A23A1747. IN THE INTEREST OF A. S. et al., CHILDREN (FATHER).

In this dependency action, the mother and father filed separate motions for

visitation. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order on May 17, 2023,

continuing the matter until the trial on the termination of parental rights set for June

2023. The parents filed these direct appeals from the May 17, 2023 order. We lack

jurisdiction.

“Generally, an order is final and appealable when it leaves no issues remaining

to be resolved, constitutes the court’s final ruling on the merits of the action, and

leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court.” Thomas v. Douglas

County, 217 Ga.App. 520, 522 (1) (457 SE2d 835) (1995); see OCGA §§ 5-6-34 (a) (1)

(providing for direct appeals from final judgments); 15-11-35 (providing for direct

appeals from final juvenile court orders). An order within a dependency proceeding

deciding temporary custody of the child is a “final order,” within the meaning of

OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), from which a direct appeal lies. In the Interestof S. J., 270 Ga.

App. 598, 608 (1) (a) (607 SE2d 225) (2004).Here, however, the order continuing the

case did not decide temporary custody nor otherwise resolve all issues in this case,

which remained pending before the juvenile court.1

See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v.

Holland, 310 Ga.App. 480, 481 (713 SE2d 678) (2011).Accordingly, the parents were

required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate

1

Indeed, the father has since filed another direct appeal from an order of the

juvenile court entered on October 12, 2023. See Case No. A24A0901.

January 29, 2024
of immediate review from the juvenile court – to appeal the juvenile court’s May 17,

2023 order. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b);CitiFinancial, 310 Ga. App. at 481. Their failure

to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over these direct appeals, which are hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/29/2024
* 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10477 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v. CORNELIO BANDA Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:05-CR-40-2

-------------------- Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Cornelio Banda appeals his sentence following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute less than 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. He argues that the district court erroneously calculated the drug quantity attributable to him when determining his guideline range. We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error.No. 06-10477 -2- United States v. Caldwell , 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court’s calculation of drug quantity is a factual finding that is entitled to considerable deference and is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Betancourt , 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous as long as it is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Testimony at trial showed that Banda was involved in numerous drug transactions as both a supplier and receiver of methamphetamine. For example, Banda supplied drugs to Michael Fletcher weekly from March 2004 to June 2004 in varying amounts. Banda concedes that a conservative estimate of one ounce per week would equate to one pound of methamphetamine. He also supplied drugs to Fletcher on four or five subsequent occasions in amounts of one to two ounces. Banda was connected to at least two other transactions involving pound quantities, was involved in multiple transactions of lesser amounts, and engaged in bartering his dogs for drugs. The district court is permitted to make reasonable estimates of drug quantities and may make reasonable inferences from the facts. Betancourt , 422 F.3d at 246. In light of this and the wide latitude afforded the district court’s findings, the district court’s conclusion that Banda was involved with at least 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine was not clearly erroneous based on the record as a whole. See id.No. 06-10477 -3- Banda also argues that the district court’s determination of facts relevant to determining the guideline range violates his Sixth Amendment rights and Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Banda correctly concedes that this argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Gussie Nieman, Appellant, against Nalven & Son, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

This is an appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board disallowing her claim for death benefits. Claimant is the widow of Lazarus Pieman. The board found that on February 18, 1945, while decedent was engaged in the regular course of his employment, he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage which resulted in his death on the same day. The board also found that decedent did not sustain accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment and that his death was unrelated to such injuries. The evidence sustains the finding of the board. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Foster and Deyo, JJ.
### §1631. Definitions

As used in this subchapter the term—

(1) "Person" means a natural person, partnership, association, other unincorporated body, corporation, or body politic.

(2) "Property" means any property, right, or interest.

(3) "Treaty of peace", with respect to a country, means the treaty of peace with that country signed at Paris, France, February 10, 1947, which came into force between that country and the United States on September 15, 1947.

(Mar. 10, 1950, ch. 54, title II, §201, as added Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 645, §3, 69 Stat. 562.)
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.1

                              PROMISSORY NOTE


$20,000.00                                                      June 16, 1995


     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned promises to pay to Rick W. Jarrett,
II ("Jarrett"), at San Diego, California, or such other place as the holder
of this Note may from time to time in writing direct, the principal sum of
Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) with interest from the above date at the
rate of ten percent per annum.  Interest shall be calculated on the basis of
a three hundred sixty (360) day year and on the actual number of days that
such principal was outstanding.

     Principal and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United
States of America and all or any part of the unpaid balance of principal may
be repaid at any time, without premium or penalty.

     The undersigned hereby waives presentment, protest, notice of protest,
demand for payment, notice of dishonor and any and all other notices and
demands in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default or
enforcement of this Note.  No delay by the holder in exercising any power or
right hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any power or right.

     The entire sum shall become immediately due and payable without further
notice, demand or presentment, at the option of the holder of this Note, upon
the occurrence at any time of any one or more of the following events
("events of default"): (a) an assignment by the undersigned for the benefit
of its creditors; (b) the initiation of involuntary bankruptcy, proceedings
against the undersigned, which proceedings are not dismissed within 60 days
thereafter of (c) the filing by the undersigned of a petition under the
Federal Bankruptcy Code or comparable state laws for the reorganization,
arrangement or other judicial protection upon insolvency.

     The foregoing option to accelerate the indebtedness evidenced by this
Note may be exercised by Jarrett at any time after the occurrence of any of
the events of default.  The failure to exercise the foregoing option on the
occurrence of one or more of such events of default shall not prevent the
exercise upon the reoccurrence of such events of default or upon the
occurrence of any other event of default.

     The undersigned agrees to pay all out-of-pocket expenses (including
reasonable attorneys' fees and legal expenses) incurred by Jarrett hereunder
in connection with enforcing the obligations of the undersigned hereunder.

     This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of California.

6-16-95                                          /s/ James B. Kylstad
--------------------                             --------------------------
Date                                             TCS Enterprises, Inc.
### SUBCHAPTER I—POLICY PLANNING AND COORDINATION
### §215. "Consul" defined

The word "consul" as used in this chapter shall mean the consular officer in charge of the district concerned.

(Mar. 3, 1915, ch. 74, §12, 38 Stat. 822.)
### SUBCHAPTER XIV—NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6307

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERALD FELTON, a/k/a Big Mass, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-93-123-F) Submitted: July 13, 1999 Decided: September 27, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Felton, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Blaise Hamilton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gerald Felton seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion for an extension to file a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andorders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Felton , No. CR-93-123- F (E.D.N.C. Feb . 9 & Mar. 3, 1999). 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
### PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION Temecula Band ofLutsefio Mission Indians

Post Office Box 1477 • Temecula, CA 92593 Telephone (951) 770-6000 Fax (951) 695-1778

TRIBAL COUNCIL EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PECHANGABAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION
EXECUTIVE ORDERNo
. 141104-4.1 Tribal Chairman: Mark Macarro Council Members: Catalina R. Chacon Corrina R. Garbani Sanchez Marc Luker Andrew Masiel, Sr. Robert "R.J." Munoa Russell "Butch" Murphy Tribal Secretary: Louise Burke Tribal Treasurer: ChristinaMcMenamin

PURPOSE: To submit the Pechanga Tribal Implementation Plan ("TIP") for the 8-hour ozone standard as part of the Tribe's Treatment as a State (TAS) application under the Clean Air Act for review and approval by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency ("EPA"). WHEREAS : The Temecula Band of Luisefio Mission Indians, sometimes referred to as the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, federally recognized as the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Mission Indians of the Pechanga Indian Reservation (hereinafter "the Band") is a sovereign, federally recognized Indian tribe; and WHEREAS: The Pechanga General Membership is the governing body ofthe Pechanga Indian Reservation and is governed by the Band's Constitution and Bylaws; and WHEREAS: The Band desires to promote and protect its customs and traditions, rights, interests, common welfare, and enhance senrices to its members; and WHEREAS : The Pechanga General Membership has delegated the authority to the Pechanga Tribal Council to apply to, negotiate and obtain federal approval for tribal environmental programs; and WHEREAS: The TIP will be utilized to protect the natural environment ofthe Pechanga Indian Reservation; and WHEREAS: The TIP will enhance the sovereignty and self-determination ofthe Band; and WHEREAS: The Band asserts and affirms its sovereign status and powers, and affirms the Federal Government's trust obligations to it through the exercise of

#!BAPR6LOODl2DJvl Page I of2government-to-government relations, and affirms the exercise and assertion oftribaljurisdiction. THEREFORE BE IT NOW RESOLVED THAT: the Pechanga Band hereby submits its TIP to the EPA for approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: the Tribal Chairperson shall have the authority to negotiate and execute all applications, proposals, contracts, awards or other documents pertinentto the TIP. CERTIFICATION We, the undersigned, the duly elected officers ofthe Pechanga Band of Luisefio Mission Indians, do hereby certify that the foregoing Executive Order was adopted by the Pechanga Tribal Council at a duly called Tribal Council meeting conducted on November 4, 2014, by a vote of__§_ for, _Q_ opposed, and _Q_ abstaining, and said Executive Order has not been rescinded or amended in any way.



# ~~ **~** Mark Macarro, Tribal Chairman

Marc Luker, Councilman

PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION #IBAPR6LOOD 12DJvI Temecula Band ofLuisefw Indians
### §335c. Authority to withdraw approval of abbreviated drug applications

#### (a) In general

The Secretary—

(1) shall withdraw approval of an abbreviated drug application if the Secretary finds that the approval was obtained, expedited, or otherwise facilitated through bribery, payment of an illegal gratuity, or fraud or material false statement, and

(2) may withdraw approval of an abbreviated drug application if the Secretary finds that the applicant has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of ability to produce the drug for which the application was submitted in accordance with the formulations or manufacturing practice set forth in the abbreviated drug application and has introduced, or attempted to introduce, such adulterated or misbranded drug into commerce.

#### (b) Procedure

The Secretary may not take any action under subsection (a) with respect to any person unless the Secretary has issued an order for such action made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing on disputed issues of material fact. In the course of any investigation or hearing under this subsection, the Secretary may administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses, receive evidence, and issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence that relates to the matter under investigation.

#### (c) Applicability

Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to offenses or acts regardless of when such offenses or acts occurred.

#### (d) Judicial review

Any person that is the subject of an adverse decision under subsection (a) may obtain a review of such decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or for the circuit in which the person resides, by filing in such court (within 60 days following the date the person is notified of the Secretary's decision) a petition requesting that the decision be modified or set aside.

(June 25, 1938, ch. 675, §308, as added Pub. L. 102–282, §4, May 13, 1992, 106 Stat. 160.)

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

#### Construction

This section not to preclude any other civil, criminal, or administrative remedy provided under Federal or State law, including any private right of action against any person for the same action subject to any action or civil penalty under an amendment made by Pub. L. 102–282, see section 7 of Pub. L. 102–282, set out as a note under section 335a of this title.