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

DAY ELEV

 1,033.04

 1,033.59

 1,034.16

 1,034.62

 1,034.99

 1,035.32

 1,035.67

 1,035.97

 1,036.24

 1,036.45

 1,036.67

 1,036.90

 1,037.15

 1,037.46

 1,037.85

 1,040.38

 1,048.37

 1,052.03

 1,052.03

 1,051.26

 1,050.01

 1,048.54

 1,046.68

 1,044.66

 1,045.95

 1,047.40

 1,046.56

 1,044.84

 1,042.86

 3,610.9

 3,625.1

 3,639.7

 3,651.6

 3,661.2

 3,669.8

 3,678.8

 3,686.6

 3,693.7

 3,699.2

 3,704.9

 3,710.9

 3,717.5

 3,725.6

 3,735.8

 3,802.6

 4,018.1

 4,119.6

 4,119.6

 4,098.1

 4,063.4

 4,022.8

 3,971.9

 3,917.1

 3,952.0

 3,991.5

 3,968.6

 3,921.9

 3,868.6

STORAGE

+4.4

+14.1

+14.7

+11.9

+9.6

+8.6

+9.1

+7.8

+7.0

+5.5

+5.7

+6.0

+6.5

+8.1

+10.2

+66.8

+215.5

+101.5

+0.0

-21.5

-34.7

-40.6

-50.9

-54.8

+34.9

+39.6

-22.9

-46.7

-53.3

CHANGE

 6,295

 10,944

 10,681

 9,415

 8,642

 8,068

 8,515

 7,868

 7,491

 7,072

 7,161

 7,336

 7,309

 8,108

 9,055

 35,422

 110,890

 79,979

 44,067

 33,086

 26,777

 23,015

 18,717

 18,336

 34,135

 50,522

 35,672

 25,565

 21,870

INFLOW

 4,054

 3,812

 3,264

 3,421

 3,791

 3,679

 3,924

 3,871

 3,886

 4,247

 4,159

 4,217

 3,910

 4,009

 3,859

 1,662

 2,011

 8,518

 10,698

 11,824

 14,185

 14,278

 14,339

 12,548

 14,151

 14,137

 14,401

 14,261

 14,298

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 20,279

 33,328

 32,020

 30,067

 29,156

 29,999

 33,425

 2,372

 16,444

 32,836

 34,827

 34,356

OUTLET

 45

 0

 15

 0

 30

 69

 8

 69

 54

 61

 107

 92

 100

 0

 39

 62

 235

 25

 41

 74

 41

 32

 64

 0

 0

 0

 0

 16

 71

C.F.S.

 .06

 .00

 .02

 .00

 .04

 .09

 .01

 .09

 .07

 .08

 .14

 .12

 .13

 .00

 .05

 .08

 .29

 .03

 .05

 .09

 .05

 .04

 .08

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .09

INCHES

 .00

 .95

 1.18

 .12

 .00

 .00

 .21

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .23

 .20

 2.48

 2.84

 2.65

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .26

 .53

 .91

 1.96

 2.56

 2.39

 .03

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2004 SHASTA LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 29, 2004

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

RIVER

TOTALS +262.1 682,013 219,414 0 329,109 1,350 1.72 19.50

ACRE-FEET +262,100 1,352,773 435,208 0 652,788 2,678

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 435,208

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 652,788

 1,087,996

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 19.50

JULY 1, 2003 59.33

 3,606.5

Table 3
#### The Williams Patent Crusher and Pulverizer Company, Appellant, Respondent, v. Lyth Tile Company, Respondent, Appellant.

Order affirmed, without costs. All concurred.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

March 7, 2006

Before

Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Chief Judge

Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 03-4140

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KENNETH A. LEE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Central

District of Illinois

No. 02 CR 10096

Michael M. Mihm, Judge.

O R D E R

Kenneth Lee challenged his sentence of 262 months’ imprisonment in light of

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), contending that the district court

committed plain error in its application of the then-mandatory sentencing

guidelines. Based on United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 483-84 (7th Cir.

2005), we issued a limited remand to the Central District of Illinois to determine

whether it would impose the same sentence now that the guidelines are no longer

mandatory. 

The district court, in a thoughtful opinion, responded that it would again

impose the identical sentence of 262 months on Lee post-Booker. In its written

decision, the district court considered Lee’s arguments for a reduction, as well as

each of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We invited the parties to file

arguments regarding the appropriate disposition in light of the district court’s

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 03-4140 Page 2

decision. As the sentence falls within the applicable guidelines range, it is

presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.

2005). Lee concedes that there is no basis to argue against either the sentence or

the district court’s actions. Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s original

sentence.
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.202 Who may get SSI benefits. You are eligible for SSI benefits if you meet all of the following requirements: ( a ) You are— ( 1 ) Aged 65 or older (subpart H);
( 2 ) Blind (subpart I); or
( 3 ) Disabled (subpart I).
( b ) You are a resident of the United States (§ 416.1603), and— ( 1 ) A citizen or a national of the United States (§ 416.1610);
( 2 ) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (§ 416.1615);
( 3 ) An alien permanently residing in the United States under color of law (§ 416.1618); or
( 4 ) A child of armed forces personnel living overseas as described in § 416.216.
( c ) You do not have more income than is permitted (subparts K and D).
( d ) You do not have more resources than are permitted (subpart L).
( e ) You are disabled, drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability (see § 416.935), and you have not previously received a total of 36 months of Social Security benefit payments when appropriate treatment was available or 36 months of SSI benefits on the basis of disability where drug addiction or alcoholism was a contributing factor material to the determination of disability.
( f ) You are not— ( 1 ) Fleeing to avoid prosecution for a crime, or an attempt to commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place from which you flee (or which, in the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of that State);
( 2 ) Fleeing to avoid custody or confinement after conviction for a crime, or an attempt to commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place from which you flee (or which, in the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of that State); or
( 3 ) Violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or State law.
( g ) You file an application for SSI benefits (subpart C).
[47 FR 3103, Jan. 22, 1982, as amended at 58 FR 4897, Jan. 19, 1993; 60 FR 8149, Feb. 10, 1995; 61 FR 10277, Mar. 13, 1996; 65 FR 40495, June 30, 2000]
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 Annual Report of MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sang Park, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/    SANG
PARK                              
|Sang Park Chief Executive Officer and Chairman

March 29, 2007
# C_2012375EN.01000301.xml

| 5.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/3

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 26 March 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.462 (2) — Freight forwarding

Rapporteur: Slovak Republic

2012/C 375/03

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the specific increases of the basic amounts of the fines so as to ensure a sufficiently deterrent effect. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the specific increases of the basic amounts of the fines so as to ensure a sufficiently deterrent effect.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances applicable in this case. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances applicable in this case.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reductions of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reductions of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal.

---
* 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40786 Conference Calendar

JAMES WILLIE DUKE, III, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus UNKNOWN PERSON CHANDLER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:99-CV-280

- - - - - - - - - - February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * James Willie Duke, III, federal prisoner # 24193-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition that invoked 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He also requests a certificate of appelability (COA) for claims arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. To obtain a COA, Duke must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When challenging a dismissal on procedural grounds, such as the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction presented here, Duke must makeNo. 99-40786 -2- a credible showing that the district court erred when it dismissed his claim. See Whitehead v. Johnson , 157 F.3d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 1998). Duke argues the following: (1) the district court erred when it dismissed issues arising under § 2255 that related to sentencing; and (2) the indictment in his underlying criminal trial was insufficient. Duke also filed a motion to supplement the record and a motion for appointment of counsel. These motions are DENIED. To the extent that Duke has made a § 2241 claim relating to credit for time served in state prison, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED because Duke has failed to argue the issue on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Duke also has failed to make a credible showing that the district court erred when it dismissed his § 2255 claims relating to sentencing. See Whitehead , 157 F.3d at 386. This court will not consider the issue whether the indictment was sufficient because it was raised for the first time in Duke’s request for COA. See id. at 388. Accordingly, Duke’s request for COA is DENIED. The portion of the judgment relating to § 2241 is AFFIRMED. COA is DENIED on all other issues. All other motions are DENIED.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2697

_____________________________

DONALD VERNON KELLEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel —

Original Jurisdiction.

May 9, 2018

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

ROBERTS, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Donald Vernon Kelley, pro se, Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 99.4
 BROWN SHOE COMPANY, INC.
 Offer For All Outstanding
 71/8% Senior Notes Due 2019

in exchange for
 71/8% Senior Notes Due 2019
which have been registered under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended
 Pursuant to the Prospectus dated , 2011
  The Exchange Offer and withdrawal rights will expire at 5:00 p.m., New
York City Time, on , 2011, unless extended (the
Expiration Date). Tenders may be withdrawn prior to 5:00 p.m., New
York City time, on the Expiration Date.
 To Our Clients:
 1 8 1 8
 We are the registered holder of Original Notes held by us for your account. A tender of any
such Original Notes can be made only by us as the registered holder and pursuant to your
instructions. The Original Notes may be tendered only in a minimum denomination of $2,000 or
integral multiples of $1,000 in excess thereof. The Letter of Transmittal is furnished to you for
your information only and cannot be used by you to tender Original Notes held by us for your
account.
 We urge you to read the Prospectus and the Letter of
Transmittal carefully before instructing us to tender your Original Notes.
 The
Exchange Offer will expire at 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on      , 2011, unless
extended.




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



BROWN SHOE COMPANY, INC.
 INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING THE EXCHANGE OFFER
WITH RESPECT TO THE
$200,000,000 OF 71/8% SENIOR NOTES DUE 2019
(ORIGINAL NOTES)
    o  o
  Aggregate Principal Amount Held for
    
    Principal Amount to be Tendered (ifType
    
    Account of Holder(s)
    
    less than all)*71/8% Senior Notes due 2019
 *
    
    UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, SIGNATURE(S) HEREON BY BENEFICIAL OWNER(S) SHALL CONSTITUTE AN
INSTRUCTION TO THE NOMINEE TO TENDER ALL ORIGINAL NOTES OF SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER(S).  SIGN HERE
 3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry W. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 04-40997, 04-41045, 04-41610.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 22, 2006.

David Haskell Henderson, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Bernard John Shealy, Amy R. Blalock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, Jerry W, Williams, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jerry W. Williams has appealed the district court’s order modifying the conditions of his supervised release to require his placement in a community corrections center. Williams has also appealed the district court’s orders denying his motions for statewide travel authorization during the *5872004-05 holiday season and to have grand jury proceedings unsealed and transcribed and to unseal and transcribe all records. These three appeals have been consolidated.

Williams’s appointed counsel, the Federal Public Defender, has moved for leave to withdraw, pursuant to *Anders v. State of California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that the appeal from the modification of the conditions of Williams’s supervised release presents no nonfrivolous issue. Williams has filed a response to the motion.

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). After this appeal was filed, Williams’s supervision was revoked on the basis of new and continuing violations of the conditions of his supervised release and he has been sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment with no further supervision. Because Williams is no longer under supervision and will not be subject to supervision after he has served his additional term of imprisonment, the appeals from the orders modifying the conditions of his supervised release and denying Williams’s request for leave to travel out of state are moot. *See Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 7-14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). The motions to have grand jury proceedings unsealed and transcribed, and to unseal and transcribe all records were predicated on the reinstatement of Williams’s then pending appeal in *United States v. Williams,*142 Fed.Appx. 205 (5th Cir.2005) (unpublished). Because that appeal has been decided, the appeal from the order denying those motions is moot.

Because the consolidated appeals are moot, this court lacks jurisdiction. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY and the appeal is DISMISSED.

*

 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.
### §2663. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 5, 1946, ch. 541, title I, 60 Stat. 450, 451, the Department of State Appropriation Act, 1947, related to compensation of personnel and rent and expenses of despatch agencies established by Secretary of State. See section 2662 of this title.

Section was formerly classified to section 153a of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.

Similar provisions were contained in the following prior Department of State Appropriation Acts:

May 21, 1945, ch. 129, title I, 59 Stat. 173.

June 28, 1944, ch. 294, title I, 58 Stat. 399.

July 1, 1943, ch. 182, title I, 57 Stat. 275.

July 2, 1942, ch. 472, title I, 56 Stat. 473.

June 28, 1941, ch. 258, title I, 55 Stat. 268.

May 14, 1940, ch. 189, title I, 54 Stat. 185.
### SUBCHAPTER V—CLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.24(a)







Schedule of Employment Continuation Agreements of Named Executive Officers dated September 30, 2018.


	
		
	 
Name
	 
Termination Benefit

	 
Laurence M. Downes, President and Chief Executive Officer
	 
Three times the sum, of (x) his then annual base salary and (y) the average of his annual bonuses paid or payable with respect to the last three calendar years ended prior to the Change of Control.

	 
Stephen D. Westhoven, President and Chief Operating Officer
	 
Two times the sum, of (x) his then annual base salary and (y) the average of his annual bonuses paid or payable with respect to the last three calendar years ended prior to the Change of Control (“2x”).

	 
Patrick J. Migliaccio, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	

2x

	 
Amanda Mullan, Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer
	

2x

	 
Nancy A. Washington, Senior Vice President and General Counsel
	

2x
# C_2012304EN.01000301.xml

| 9.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/3

---

Decisions in the context of the monitoring of the implementation of decisions regarding restructuring and liquidation aid for financial institutions

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 304/03

| Date of adoption of the decision | 12.9.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | SA.30962 (MC 6/10) |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Monitoring of Ethias — Prolongation of divestment deadline Ethias Banque — Belgium |
| Type of decision | New decision related to the following Commission decision: N 256/09 |
| Content | Extension of a divestment deadline until decision by regulator on the proposed buyer |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

12.9.2012

Reference number of the aid

SA.30962 (MC 6/10)

Member State

Belgium

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Monitoring of Ethias — Prolongation of divestment deadline Ethias Banque — Belgium

Type of decision

New decision related to the following Commission decision: N 256/09

Content

Extension of a divestment deadline until decision by regulator on the proposed buyer

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Darrell Anthony Adell, Jr. v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-21-00439-CR

Trial court case number: 87429-CR

Trial court: 149th District Court of Brazoria County

On November 16, 2022, appellee, the State of Texas, filed a “Motion to Exceed Word 

Count.” We grant appellee’s motion.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Julie Countiss________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __November 22, 2022____