alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Carlos Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Alvin M. Yearwood, J. at plea; John S. Moore, J. at sentencing), rendered July 18, 2013, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of assault in the third degree and criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Alvin M. Yearwood, J. at plea; John S. Moore, J. at sentencing), rendered July 18, 2013, affirmed.</p><p>Application by appellant's counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (<i>see Anders v California</i>, 386 US 738 [1967]; <i>People v Saunders</i>, 52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to <i>Anders</i>, and, upon an independent review of the record, agree that there is no</p><br>valid appealable issue that could be raised on appeal.<p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: October 11, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
### §2349aa. General authority

Notwithstanding any other provision of law that restricts assistance to foreign countries (other than sections 2304 and 2371 of this title), the President is authorized to furnish, on such terms and conditions as the President may determine, assistance to foreign countries in order to enhance the ability of their law enforcement personnel to deter terrorists and terrorist groups from engaging in international terrorist acts such as bombing, kidnapping, assassination, hostage taking, and hijacking. Such assistance may include training services and the provision of equipment and other commodities related to bomb detection and disposal, management of hostage situations, physical security, and other matters relating to the detection, deterrence, and prevention of acts of terrorism, the resolution of terrorist incidents, and the apprehension of those involved in such acts.

(Pub. L. 87–195, pt. II, §571, as added Pub. L. 98–151, §101(b)(2), Nov. 14, 1983, 97 Stat. 972; amended Pub. L. 104–164, title I, §121(a), July 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 1428.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 571 of Pub. L. 87–195 is based on section 201 of title II of H.R. 2992, Ninety-eighth Congress, as reported May 17, 1983, and enacted into law by Pub. L. 98–151.

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–164 substituted "Notwithstanding any other provision of law that restricts assistance to foreign countries (other than sections 2304 and 2371 of this title)" for "Subject to the provisions of this part".

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

#### Effective Date

Section 203 of title II of H.R. 2992, as enacted into permanent law by Pub. L. 98–151, §101(b)(2), Nov. 14, 1983, 97 Stat. 972, provided that: "This title [enacting this part and amending sections 2304 and 2403 of this title] shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 14, 1983]."

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Functions

For delegation of functions of President under this section, see Ex. Ord. No. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 F.R. 56673, as amended, set out as a note under section 2381 of this title.
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

 253

 285

 255

 293

 274

 291

 0

 0

 0

 0

 272

 262

 285

 292

 283

 278

 255

 277

 282

 295

 258

 258

 260

 267

 265

 307

 301

 269

 298

 314

 197

 202

 203

 199

 203

 208

 0

 0

 0

 0

 208

 204

 209

 207

 204

 202

 197

 194

 222

 202

 193

 189

 184

 212

 231

 237

 256

 205

 193

 278

 216

 255

 226

 239

 230

 240

 0

 0

 0

 0

 230

 226

 233

 230

 230

 224

 210

 217

 248

 270

 215

 212

 213

 234

 242

 274

 265

 231

 246

 299

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 6, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 13 (O'NEILL)
§ 1010.240 Will the Department be monitoring for compliance with priority of service? ( a ) The Department will monitor recipients of funds for qualified job training programs to ensure that covered persons are made aware of and afforded priority of service.
( b ) Monitoring priority of service will be performed jointly between the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) and the DOL agency responsible for the program's administration and oversight.
( c ) A recipient's failure to provide priority of service to covered persons will be handled in accordance with the program's established compliance review processes. In addition to the remedies available under the program's compliance review processes, a recipient may be required to submit a corrective action plan to correct such failure.
Exhibit 11

                STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                     Six Month Period Ended,                Quarter Ended
                            June 30,                           June 30, 
                        1997         1996                1997            1996
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                     <C>          <C>                 <C>          <C>
Earnings Per share:
  Primary               $0.94        $0.85               $0.48        $0.44
  Fully diluted         $0.93        $0.85               $0.48        $0.43

</TABLE>

Primary and fully diluted earnings per share are calculated using the following
number of adjusted weighted average shares outstanding:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Six Month Period Ended,                   Quarter Ended
                             June 30,                        June 30, 
                        1997         1996              1997            1996
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                     <C>          <C>               <C>          <C>
Earnings Per share:
  Primary               $6,013,654   $6,004,395        $6,017,467   $5,998,686
  Fully diluted         $6,017,746   $6,010,577        $6,021,212   $6,011,436
</TABLE>

The weighted average number of shares outstanding is adjusted to recognize the
dilutive effect, if any, of outstanding employee stock options on both a
primary and fully diluted basis.

The calculations of earnings per share above are based on the weighted average
number of shares outstanding, adjusted for the 5 percent stock dividend paid 
August 8, 1997, including all common stock and common stock equivalents in 
conformity with the instructions for Item 601 of Regulation S-K. The 
calculation of earnings per share for financial reporting purposes is based on
the weighted average number of shares outstanding of 5,974,072 and 5,951,796 at
June 30, 1997 and June 30, 1996, respectively, without giving effect to the 
common stock equivalents resulting from the assumed exercise of stock options,
which do not dilute earnings per share by more than 3 percent, in conformity 
with generally accepted accounting principles.
(No. 6785

#### Standard Oil Division of American Oil Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Conservation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 7, 1972.*

*56Standard Oil Division of American Oil Company, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Perlin, C.J.
### §1622e. Vesting of all non-adjudicatory functions, powers, and duties in Chairman of Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States

All functions, powers, and duties not directly related to adjudicating claims are hereby vested in the Chairman, including the functions set forth in section 3 of Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1954 and the authority to issue rules and regulations.

(Pub. L. 96–209, title I, §105, Mar. 14, 1980, 94 Stat. 97.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1954, referred to in text, is Reorg. Plan. No. 1 of 1954, July 1, 1954, 19 F.R. 3985, 68 Stat. 1279, which is set out as a note under section 1622 of this title.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Mar. 14, 1980, see title VI of Pub. L. 96–209, set out as a note under section 1622a of this title.
#### LEO J. MEYBERG CO. v. EUREKA WILLIAMS CORP.

No. 13877.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 30, 1954.

Writ of Certiorari Denied Nov. 8, 1954.

See 75 S.Ct. 113.

H. W. Glensor, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Maurice' D. L. Fuller, Jr., John B. Bates, Thomas E. Haven, Anthony P. Brown, San Francisco, Cal., Goddard, McClintock, Fulton & Donovan, Detroit, Mich., for appellee.

Before MATHEWS, HEALY ana BONE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The complaint herein alleges a violation of § 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S. C.A. § 14, by reason of the refusal of ap-pellee to continue business relations with appellant unless appellant would agree to deal exclusively in the product of appel-lee. That section of the Clayton Act makes it unlawful to enter into any lease, sale, or contract conditioned upon the lessee or purchaser not dealing in the goods of a competitor, where the effect of such lease, sale or contract may be to substantially lessen competition or create monopoly. The contract (of 1944) previously existing between the parties was, by its terms, terminable at will, and contained no provision violative of § 3 of the Clayton Act. In July, 1952, appellee terminated the contract by telegram for the reason heretofore stated, because appellant was continuing to deal in the product of a competitor of appellee.

Prior to July, 1952, the contract between the parties did not forbid appellant to deal in products of a competitor of appellee. After July, 1952, there was no contract, lease or sale between the parties at all. It is manifest that there could be no violation of said § 3 by entering into an illegal lease, sale or contract.

The judgment of the district court dismissing this case must therefore be, and it hereby is, affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

I, G. Ward Paxton, ChiefExecutive Officer of Intrusion Inc., certify that:

 

(1)                          I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSBof Intrusion Inc.:

 

(2)                          Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

(3)                          Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

(4)                          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)              Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

(5)                          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  May 12, 2005 | /s/ G. Ward Paxton      |   |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                          | G. Ward Paxton          |
|                          | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
(No. 74-CC-558

#### Chicago Progressive Mercantile Co., Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 17, 1974.*

*366Chicago Progressive Mercantile Co., Inc., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro BERMUDEZ-ANGELES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41421.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided July 13, 2006.

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

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Pedro Bermudez-Angeles raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Govern*389ment’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
### §2705. Documentation of citizenship

The following documents shall have the same force and effect as proof of United States citizenship as certificates of naturalization or of citizenship issued by the Attorney General or by a court having naturalization jurisdiction:

(1) A passport, during its period of validity (if such period is the maximum period authorized by law), issued by the Secretary of State to a citizen of the United States.

(2) The report, designated as a "Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States", issued by a consular officer to document a citizen born abroad. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "consular officer" includes any United States citizen employee of the Department of State who is designated by the Secretary of State to adjudicate nationality abroad pursuant to such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe.

(Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 841, title I, §33, as added and renumbered title I, Pub. L. 97–241, title I, §117, title II, §202(a), Aug. 24, 1982, 96 Stat. 279, 282; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. G, subdiv. B, title XXII, §2222(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–818.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 33 of act Aug. 1, 1956, was renumbered section 34 by section 117 of Pub. L. 97–241, and subsequently renumbered, and set out as a Short Title of 1956 Amendment note under section 2651 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–138, title I, §111(1), Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 654.

#### Amendments

1998—Par. (2). Pub. L. 105–277 inserted at end "For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'consular officer' includes any United States citizen employee of the Department of State who is designated by the Secretary of State to adjudicate nationality abroad pursuant to such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe."

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

#### Record of Place of Birth for Taiwanese-Americans

Pub. L. 103–236, title I, §132, Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 395, as amended by Pub. L. 103–415, §1(r), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4302, provided that: "For purposes of the registration of birth or certification of nationality or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in Taiwan, the Secretary of State shall permit the place of birth to be recorded as Taiwan."
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4186 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4186

To add support of a foreign terrorist organization to the list of acts 
for which United States nationals would lose their nationality, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2015

 Mr. Dent (for himself and Mr. Ashford) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To add support of a foreign terrorist organization to the list of acts 
for which United States nationals would lose their nationality, 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 ``Enemy Expatriation Act''.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

    (a) In General.--Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)) is amended--
            (1) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking 
        ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(8) traveling abroad to join, participate in, train with, 
        fight for, conspire with, or otherwise support a foreign 
        terrorist organization designated by the Secretary of State 
        under section 219.''.
    (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 351(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ``(6) and 
(7)'' and inserting ``(6), (7), and (8)''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1****WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cuisine Solutions, Inc.(the “Company”), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (a) the Quarterly Report and Form 10-Q for the period ended September 17, 2005 filed on thedate hereof by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and  (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Stanislas Vilgrain Stanislas Vilgrain Chief Executive Officer October 25, 2005/s/ Yuyun Tristan Kuo Yuyun Tristan Kuo Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
§ 404.953 The decision of an administrative law judge. ( a ) *General.* The administrative law judge shall issue a written decision that gives the findings of fact and the reasons for the decision. The administrative law judge must base the decision on the preponderance of the evidence offered at the hearing or otherwise included in the record. The administrative law judge shall mail a copy of the decision to all the parties at their last known address. The Appeals Council may also receive a copy of the decision.
( b ) *Fully favorable oral decision entered into the record at the hearing.* The administrative law judge may enter a fully favorable oral decision based on the preponderance of the evidence into the record of the hearing proceedings. If the administrative law judge enters a fully favorable oral decision into the record of the hearing proceedings, the administrative law judge may issue a written decision that incorporates the oral decision by reference. The administrative law judge may use this procedure only in those categories of cases that we identify in advance. The administrative law judge may only use this procedure in those cases where the administrative law judge determines that no changes are required in the findings of fact or the reasons for the decision as stated at the hearing. If a fully favorable decision is entered into the record at the hearing, the administrative law judge will also include in the record, as an exhibit entered into the record at the hearing, a document that sets forth the key data, findings of fact, and narrative rationale for the decision. If the decision incorporates by reference the findings and the reasons stated in an oral decision at the hearing, the parties shall also be provided, upon written request, a record of the oral decision.
( c ) *Recommended decision.* Although an administrative law judge will usually make a decision, the administrative law judge may send the case to the Appeals Council with a recommended decision based on a preponderance of the evidence when appropriate. The administrative law judge will mail a copy of the recommended decision to the parties at their last known addresses and send the recommended decision to the Appeals Council.
[45 FR 52081, Aug. 5, 1980, as amended at 51 FR 303, Jan. 3, 1986; 54 FR 37792, Sept. 13, 1989; 69 FR 61597, Oct. 20, 2004; 73 FR 76944, Dec. 18, 2008; 75 FR 33168, June 11, 2010]
Attachment B 

Email Announcement of ARB Public Hearing
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

 591

 680

 639

 637

 612

 505

 448

 500

 445

 396

 324

 445

 467

 538

 654

 462

 557

 561

 575

 400

 315

 429

 349

 323

 328

 553

 577

 683

 1,090

 547

 408

 134

 131

 133

 124

 136

 136

 146

 153

 147

 123

 135

 133

 129

 139

 132

 140

 135

 131

 156

 136

 144

 149

 138

 144

 132

 163

 148

 140

 163

 199

 149

 298

 298

 295

 298

 280

 276

 280

 286

 263

 238

 230

 239

 250

 263

 300

 284

 284

 288

 283

 237

 244

 266

 255

 244

 232

 259

 275

 301

 440

 377

 295

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2003 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 10, 2003

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER