alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 23,311

 22,427

 22,227

 21,240

 18,977

 18,132

 19,420

 21,494

 24,893

 26,673

 26,076

 26,511

 26,234

 26,684

 27,667

 27,110

 26,230

 24,728

 24,851

 23,267

 24,275

 25,021

 26,377

 27,781

 29,169

 28,442

 27,646

 26,976

 26,560

 25,947

 27,184

 8,191

 7,850

 8,910

 8,569

 8,165

 7,833

 8,000

 7,939

 8,096

 9,291

 9,589

 9,971

 9,900

 10,479

 11,098

 11,231

 11,333

 11,516

 9,614

 8,981

 12,757

 13,636

 12,964

 13,004

 12,653

 12,787

 12,150

 13,142

 13,012

 14,034

 14,536

 15,125

 14,849

 15,286

 15,198

 14,009

 12,958

 12,347

 12,742

 14,399

 16,613

 17,547

 17,452

 17,471

 18,296

 18,781

 18,690

 18,118

 18,025

 15,549

 16,984

 18,170

 18,258

 18,338

 19,034

 19,603

 19,871

 19,494

 19,428

 19,783

 20,421

 20,781

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

AUGUST 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 1, 2012

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO BOTTOM IN SUISUN BAY
### §§1351 to 1353. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1351, act Apr. 30, 1946, ch. 244, title V, §501, 60 Stat. 155, which related to suspension and termination of trade agreement in case of discrimination, was omitted in view of the expiration of the revised agreement between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines which occurred on July 4, 1974.

Section 1352, act Apr. 30, 1946, ch. 244, title V, §502, 60 Stat. 155, which related to suspension of provisions of subchapter I of this chapter, was omitted on authority of former section 1345 of this title which nullified subchapter I of this chapter upon the expiration of the revised agreement between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines which occurred on July 4, 1974.

Section 1353, act Apr. 30, 1946, ch. 244, title V, §503, 60 Stat. 156, related to customs duties on imports from Philippines during period subchapter I of this chapter was in effect. See note above for section 1352 of this title.
#### The St. Louis National Stock Yards *v.*George Himrod.

*Practice—objection to form of referee's report—at what time to be made.*Where exceptions to the report of <a referee are taken before the referee, merely technical objections to the form of the report, which are omitted to be made before the referee, will be regarded as waived.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. William H. Snyder, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Bowman *&*Wingate, for the appellant.

Mr. R. A. Halbert, and Mr. M. Millard, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Dickey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action brought in the circuit court of St. Clair county, by Himrod, against the St. Louis National Stock Yards. The declaration contained the common counts and a copy of the account under the statute. To this declaration the defendant pleaded *non assumpsit.*-While this suit was pending, and at the April term, 1874, the parties agreed in writing to refer the case to Alonzo Wilderman, as referee, *“*for report, etc., the judgment thereon to be rendered as of present term.”

At the April term, 1876, Wilderman made his report, which was filed in the court, in which he found in favor of the plaintiff, and that he was entitled to judgment for $2,976.73, and judgment was rendered accordingly. The referee accompanied his report with a full report of the testimony heard by him. Defendant excepted to this report, and the exceptions were overruled. Defendant resisted the motion for judgment, but judgment was rendered upon the award, defendant excepting to the ruling of the circuit court, and defendant appealed.

After a careful examination of the evidence, no substantial error is made apparent upon the record. No question of law *39is presented in the case. The testimony before the referee was contradictory, and he states in his report that he fully considered the credibility of the witnesses and their means of knowledge. Some technical objections are pointed out to the form of the report. Ho such objections seem to have been taken before the referee, and exceptions to the report were made before the referee and considered by him, and overruled before the report was made to the circuit court. It is so shown by the bill of exceptions. The substance of the report seems unexceptionable. The case involves a mass of testimony, and many items of account in detail, which we deem it unnecessary to review. Substantial justice seems to have been done.

The judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
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

 24,926

 24,343

 24,867

 26,789

 26,642

 26,691

 26,675

 27,757

 27,286

 26,810

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 15,836

 16,341

 16,545

 16,893

 16,768

 16,194

 15,382

 14,705

 14,889

 15,136

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 20,274

 20,452

 20,551

 21,459

 21,235

 20,426

 20,490

 20,753

 20,926

 20,717

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2001 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 5, 2001

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO TOP IN SUISUN BAY
492 P.2d 1258

#### ENCINO GARDENS CARE CENTER, INC., a Corporation, Petitioner, v. Ella Lee CROCKETT, Respondent.

No. 9391.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 18, 1972.

Further ordered that the record in Court of Appeals Cause No. 699, 83 N.M. 410, 492 P.2d 1273, be and the same is hereby returned to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50470

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MANUEL ADRIAN VALLES-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-2775

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

Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Manuel Adrian

Valles-Martinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
### Part XI—Support for Economic and Democratic Development of the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union
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

 4,980

 4,397

 5,225

 6,996

 7,604

 8,581

 8,502

 7,071

 6,153

 5,235

 3,361

 2,248

 2,586

 2,725

 3,232

 4,051

 4,631

 5,027

 3,390

 4,753

 4,606

 5,086

 4,288

 4,147

 2,985

 2,744

 2,664

 2,900

 3,090

 3,661

 3,917

 837

 806

 918

 852

 1,025

 1,045

 831

 799

 809

 714

 727

 612

 711

 585

 757

 828

 804

 759

 769

 806

 849

 766

 765

 773

 746

 674

 755

 739

 685

 726

 676

 2,008

 1,722

 1,925

 2,527

 2,963

 3,174

 2,958

 2,746

 2,599

 2,496

 1,781

 1,337

 1,245

 1,216

 1,352

 1,502

 1,813

 1,698

 1,607

 1,784

 1,991

 1,969

 1,947

 1,734

 1,692

 1,622

 1,458

 1,374

 1,365

 1,345

 1,570

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 8, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
### §1071. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–465, title II, §2205(1), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2159

Section, acts Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title VIII, §811, 60 Stat. 1020; Aug. 5, 1955, ch. 576, §10, 69 Stat. 537; Sept. 8, 1960, Pub. L. 86–723, §33, 74 Stat. 839; Feb. 28, 1970, Pub. L. 91–201, title I, §102(a), 84 Stat. 17; July 12, 1976, Pub. L. 94–350, title V, §504, 90 Stat. 836; Aug. 17, 1977, Pub. L. 95–105, title IV, §409(a), 91 Stat. 854, Ex. Ord. No. 12145, §1–103, July 18, 1979, 44 F.R. 42653, related to rate of contributions to Fund.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Feb. 15, 1981, except as otherwise provided, see section 2403 of Pub. L. 96–465, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3901 of this title.
May 18, 2015 

The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary Foxx: 

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

As President/CEO of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, it is my top priority to protect our 

No. 1 industry - travel and tourism. So it is critical to ensure Las Vegas remains an easily accessible 

destination for the tens of millions of business and leisure travelers who visit our community each year. 

Las Vegas welcomed a record 41.1 million visitors in 2014, generating $50 billion for our local economy 

and supporting nearly the half jobs in Southern Nevada. For the past 21 consecutive years, Las Vegas 

has had the distinct honor of being named the No. 1 trade show destination in North America, hosting 60 

of the top 250 largest trade shows, according to Trade Show News Network. 

As you can see, we have worked tirelessly to position Las Vegas as the leading global travel destination it 

is today. As a globally recognized brand, our major conventions, world-class resorts, attractions and 

special events attract a large number of international visitors. In fact, approximately 20 percent, or 8.2 

million, of our visitors are international, and it is our goal to increase this market segment to 30 percent by 

2022. This growth is only possible if international travelers find it easy, convenient and affordable to 

come to the United States. 

That is why we strongly support the Open Skies policy. Open Skies agreements have increased the 

number of flights to all regions of the United States, leading to more airline competition, access to new 

and growing markets and lower fares. It is good for travelers, the travel industry and the entire U.S. 

economy. 

International flights continue to offer Las Vegas the most potential for growth. From 2009 through 2014, 

international passenger traffic at Las Vegas' McCarran International Airport increased by nearly 60 

percent, up to 3.34 million last calendar year. We believe Open Skies is vital to helping us continue 

attracting new service to Las Vegas as well as to effectively compete in the market for global travelers. 

We compete aggressively with other destinations across the country and around the world. We believe 

that more competition in all aspects of the travel industry is good for consumers and good for the growth 

of our industry, producing a better, more attractive travel "product" and encouraging more visitors to come 

here. 

That same spirit applies to competition in international aviation as well. We strongly urge you to preserve 

all existing Open Skies agreements and vigorously work to expand this successful policy. 

LAS VEGAS CONVENTION AND VISITORS AUTHORITY ..... ,. __ ,,, ....... --··--........... -··················-··-·· .. ····· .. ··--·······....-······-..... ····-·· .... ··········-····--·····-·---·-·· .... ····-.. ---..-~-·---······---· .. ···-··--·········----········· ... 

3150 PARADISE ROAD I LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 I 702.892.0711 LASVEGAS.COM I LVCVA.COM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         14,584
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         147,663
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               12,698
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    58,483
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         58,483
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           58,483
<LOANS>                                        140,118
<ALLOWANCE>                                    2,153
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 235,054
<DEPOSITS>                                     209,062
<SHORT-TERM>                                   841
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1,030
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       13
<OTHER-SE>                                     21,807
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 235,054
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                3,566
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              930
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               131
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               4,627
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1,291
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,328
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          3,299
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  6
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (4)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                3,085
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                936
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   936
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .74
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 6.26
<LOANS-NON>                                    1,411
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                5,266
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               2,524
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  405
<RECOVERIES>                                   28
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              2,153
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           2,153
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        1,489
        

</TABLE>
No. 03-13-00084-CV 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AUSTIN 

Exelon Wind, LLC, 

Appellant, 

v. 

Public Utility Commission of Texas, 

Appellee. 

On Appeal from the 261 st District Court 

Travis County, Texas 

The Honorable Rhonda Hurley Presiding 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

1602624.1iSPA'23787 0103!011515 

THOMAS K. ANSON 

STATE BAR NO. 01268200 

JUDITH R. BLAKEWAY 

STATE BAR NO. 02434400 

J. DEREK QUICK 

STATE BAR NO. 24072471 

STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP 

720 BRAZOS ST., SUITE 700 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 

TELEPHONE: (512) 499-3608 

FACSIMILE: (512) 536-5718 

Tom.Anson@strasburger.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS 

ACCEPTED

03-13-00084-CV

3803232

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

1/16/2015 3:43:49 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/16/2015 3:43:49 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to Rule 42.1 ofthe Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant Exelon Wind 

LLC hereby moves to voluntarily dismiss the appeal in the above-styled cause. 

Appellant has conferred with opposing counsel, and this motion for voluntary dismissal is 

unopposed. 

1602624.1 SPA23787 0103/011515 

Respectfully submitted, 

Is/ Thomas K. Anson 

Thomas K. Anson 

State Bar No. 01268200 

E-mail: Tom.Anson(ii!Strasburger. com 

Judith R. Blakeway 

State Bar No. 02434400 

E-mail: Judith.Blakeway@Strasburger.com 

J. Derek Quick 

State Bar No. 24072471 

Email : Derek.Quick@Strasburger.com 

STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP 

720 Brazos St., Suite 700 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Telephone: (512) 499-3608 

Facsimile: (512) 536-5718 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 

2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Pursuant to E-Filing Standing Order, I certify that on January 16, 2015, I 

electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CaseFileXpress 

electronic filing system which will send notification of such filing to the following: 

John R. Hulme 

Assistant Attorney General 

Texas State Bar No. 10258400 

Environmental Protection Division 

P. 0. Box 12548 

Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

Telephone: (512) 4 75-4229 

Facsimile: (512) 320-0911 

John.Hulme@Jexasattorneygeneral.gov 

Attorneys for The Commissioners of 

Public Utility Commission ofTexas 

Stephen Fogel 

XCEL ENERGY SERVICES INC. 

816 North Congress Avenue, Suite 1650 

Austin, Texas 78701-2471 

Telephone: (512) 478-7267 

Facsimile: (512) 478-9232 

stephen.e.fogel@xcelenergy.com 

Ron H. Moss 

WINSTEAD 

40 I Congress A venue, Suite 2100 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Telephone: (512) 370-2800 

Facsimile: (512) 370-2850 

rhmoss@winstead.com 

Attorneys for Southwestern Public 

Service Company 

Mike Stenglein 

Brad Thompson 

Amina S. Dammann 

KING & SPALDING LLP 

401 Congress A venue 

Suite 3200 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Telephone: (512) 457-2000 

Facsimile: (512) 457-2100 

mstenglein@kslaw .com 

bthompson@kslaw.com 

adammann@kslaw.com 

Attorneys for 

Occidental Permian Ltd. 

Is/ Thomas K. Anson 

Thomas K. Anson 

3 

1602624.1•SPA123787>0103 011515
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul Anthony CASTANEDA, also known as Tony Castaneda, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40581.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

Ernest Gonzalez, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Amy R. Blalock, Denise S. Benson, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Paul Anthony Castaneda appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea convictions for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute over 50 grams of methamphetamine and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Castaneda asserts that the district court erred in imposing a two-level enhancement under *596the Sentencing Guidelines for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, based on a letter written by Castaneda to his codefendant. He has not established that the district court erred in its assessment. *See United States v. Holmes,*406 F.3d 337, 363 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 375, 163 L.Ed.2d 163 (2005).

Castaneda also contends that the district court should have awarded him a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1. He has not established that the district court’s denial of that reduction was “without foundation.” *United States v. Washington,*340 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir.2003)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); *see also United States v. Angeles-Mendoza,*407 F.3d 742, 753 (5th Cir.2005); § 3E1.1, comment, (n.4).

Castaneda asserts that he is entitled to resentencing under *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the district court made factual findings that led to enhancement of the applicable guideline range. After *Booker,*“[t]he sentencing judge is entitled to find by a preponderance of the evidence all the facts relevant to the determination of a Guideline sentencing range and all facts relevant to the determination of a non-Guidelines sentence.” *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Therefore, Castaneda’s contention that the district court was precluded from enhancing his sentence based on judge-found facts is untenable.

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.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-201.3 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EXTRADITION 

 Instrument Amending the 

Treaty of April 27, 1987 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and BELGIUM 

Signed at Brussels December 16, 2004 

with 

Annex 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 BELGIUM 

 Extradition 

Instrument amending the treaty of April 27, 1987. 

Signed at Brussels December 16, 2004; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate September 28, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-14, 

 109th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 July 29, 2008 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-12, 

 110th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 September 23, 2008; 

Ratified by the President December 11, 2008; 

Exchange of Instruments of Ratification 

 at Washington August 18, 2009; 

Entered into force February 1, 2010. 

With annex. 












1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
#### § 216.3 Other regulations related to this part.

This part is related to a number of other parts. Part 217 of this chapter describes how to apply for an annuity. Part 218 indicates when annuities begin and when they terminate. Part 219 sets out what evidence is necessary to prove eligibility. Where eligibility for an annuity is based upon a family relationship to an employee (for example, a widow's annuity), the definition of such family relationship may be found in part 222 of this chapter. Part 225 of this chapter describes the computation of the primary insurance amount.