alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §4071h. General and administrative provisions

#### (a) Administration by Secretary of State; issuance of regulations

The Secretary of State shall administer the Foreign Service Pension System except for matters relating to the Thrift Savings Plan provided in subchapters III and VII of chapter 84 of title 5. The Secretary of State shall, with respect to the Foreign Service Pension System, perform the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Office of Personnel Management or the Director of such Office by such chapter 84 and may issue regulations for such purposes.

#### (b) Appeal of determinations

Determinations of the Secretary of State under the Foreign Service Pension System which, if made by the Office of Personnel Management under chapter 84 of title 5 or the Director of such Office, would be appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board shall, instead, be appealable to the Foreign Service Grievance Board, except that determinations of disability for participants shall be based upon the standards in section 4048 of this title (other than the exclusion for vicious habits, intemperance, or willful misconduct) and subject to review in the same manner as under that section.

#### (c) Periodic valuations by Secretary of the Treasury

At least every 5 years, the Secretary of the Treasury shall prepare periodic valuations of the Foreign Service Pension System and shall advise the Secretary of State of (1) the normal cost of the System, (2) the supplemental liability of the System, and (3) the amounts necessary to finance the costs of the System.

(Pub. L. 96–465, title I, §859, as added Pub. L. 99–335, title IV, §415, June 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 619.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Mario Genova, Appellant.

First Department,

April 12, 1948.

*Louis K. Wasser*for appellant.

*Edgar J.*Nathan, *3d*of counsel *(Whitman Knapp*with him on the brief; *Frank 8. Kogan, District Attorney),*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction rendered by a city magistrate sitting as a Court of Spe-

*497cial Sessions. Defendant was convicted of the crime of leaving the scene of an accidmt without reporting it in violation of the Vehicle and Trafile Law (§ 70, subd. 5-a). He was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 or to serve fifteen days in the city prison and his license to drive was revoked.

The city magistrate’s conceded failure to advise defendant, who was represented by counsel, of his right to “be tried by a court of special sessions ” (N. Y. City Crim. Cts. Act, 5 131) deprived the magistrate of jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. Section 131 of the New York City Criminal Courts Act now requires that the defendant be advised of this right, and such advice having been given, the defendant may at any time, before the court hears any testimony upon the trial, demand to be tried by the Court of Special Sessions. “ Before the defendant in a criminal proceeding may be held to have waived the important right to trial before a court of special sessions constituted as provided in the statute it is essential that every requirement of law shall have been scrupulously observed.” *(People*v. *Geltman,*267 App. Div. 83, 84.)

The judgment of conviction should be reversed, the fine remitted and the revocation of the license of defendant-appellant to operate a motor vehicle vacated and the case is directed to be remitted to the City Magistrate’s Court of the City of New York (Vehicle Accident Court), Borough of Manhattan, for further action in accordance with this opinion.

Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, J J., concur.

Judgment unanimously reversed, the fine remitted and the revocation of the license of defendant-appellant to operate a motor vehicle vacated and the matter remitted to the City Magistrate’s Court of the City of New York (Vehicle Accident Court), Borough of Manhattan, for further action in accordance with opinion. Settle order on notice.
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.1413a Reconsiderations of initial determinations on applications. The method of reconsideration we will use when you appeal an initial determination on your application for benefits depends on the issue involved in your case. ( a ) *Nonmedical issues.* If you challenge our finding on a nonmedical issue, we shall offer you a case review or an informal conference, and will reach our reconsidered determination on the basis of the review you select.
( b ) *Medical issues.* If you challenge our finding on a medical issue (even if you received payments because we presumed you were blind or disabled), we shall reach our reconsidered determination on the basis of a case review.
[45 FR 52096, Aug. 5, 1980. Redesignated at 51 FR 305, Jan. 3, 1986]
EXHIBIT 21.2 

SUBSIDIARIES OF BLACKROCK CAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION 

 

| Name                  |   | Jurisdiction   |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------|
| BKC ASW Blocker, Inc. |   | Delaware            |
| BCIC-MBS, LLC         |   | Delaware            |

 

In addition, we may be deemed to control certain portfolio companies identified as “Controlled Investments” in footnotes to the Consolidated Schedule of Investments at December 31, 2019 included in the Consolidated Financial Statements portion of BlackRock Capital Investment Corporation’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019.
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

 3,320

 3,024

 2,555

 2,926

 2,721

 2,543

 2,746

 3,146

 2,061

 3,004

 3,161

 2,449

 2,785

 3,291

 3,158

 3,084

 3,895

 5,030

 3,156

 5,690

 3,325

-329

 1,293

 3,555

 1,689

 3,442

 3,522

 2,293

 2,911

 3,245

 2,981

 95,000

 93,404

 91,607

 89,454

 87,761

 85,957

 84,075

 82,480

 81,345

 79,236

 78,128

 77,224

 75,690

 74,551

 73,950

 73,252

 72,520

 72,594

 73,743

 73,054

 74,807

 74,225

 70,201

 67,919

 67,901

 66,110

 66,075

 66,117

 64,989

 64,505

 64,363

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2020 SHASTA LAKE FLOOD CONTROL REQUIREMENTS RUN DATE: November 5, 2020

 98,320

 96,428

 94,162

 92,380

 90,482

 88,500

 86,821

 85,626

 83,406

 82,240

 81,289

 79,673

 78,475

 77,842

 77,108

 76,336

 76,415

 77,624

 76,899

 78,744

 78,132

 73,896

 71,494

 71,474

 69,590

 69,552

 69,597

 68,410

 67,900

 67,750

 67,344

 4,531,000

 4,509,000

 4,488,000

 4,467,000

 4,445,000

 4,424,000

 4,403,000

 4,382,000

 4,360,000

 4,339,000

 4,318,000

 4,296,000

 4,275,000

 4,254,000

 4,232,000

 4,211,000

 4,190,000

 4,168,000

 4,147,000

 4,126,000

 4,104,000

 4,083,000

 4,062,000

 4,041,000

 4,019,000

 3,998,000

 3,977,000

 3,955,000

 3,934,000

 3,913,000

 3,891,000

 SHASTA

 INFLOW 

C. F. S. 

 PREV DAY

 F. C. PAR 

 (COL 3) 

 X .95 

 F. C. 

 PARAM 

 (COLS. 

 1 + 2 ) 

 .0356* 

 X DAYS 

 12/23 THRU

3/20 

 530,000

 MINUS 

 F. C. 

 PARAM

 (COL 3)

 COLS 

 4 X 5 

 F. C. 

 RESERV 

 (1,300,000 

 - COL 6 ) 

 MINUS 

 14,943 

 PER DAY 

 AFTER 

 3/20 

 ADJUSTED 

 F. C. 

 RESERV 

 (7-8) 

 PERM 

 STORAGE 

 COMMENTS:

 * LEAP YEAR CONSTANT = .0352 

 CONSTANT .0356 = 1,300,000 / (TOTAL DAYS X (530,000 - 110,000 ) )

 IF COL 3 IS GREATER THAN 530,000 OR LESS THAN 110,000 USE THOSE VALUES FOR COL 3 INSTEAD OF THE COMPUTED VALUE. 

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

 100,000
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Efrain PICENO-BAEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41699.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Dis*645trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Efrain Piceno-Baez (Piceno) pleaded guilty and was convicted of attempted illegal reentry after deportation. He was sentenced to 21 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

Piceno contends that the district court erred by characterizing his state felony conviction for possession of crack cocaine as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. Relief on this issue is precluded. *See United States v. Caicedo-Cuero,*312 F.3d 697, 700-06 (5th Cir.2002); *United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez,*130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997).

Piceno also asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. Piceno’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Piceno contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Piceno properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

Accordingly, 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.
| Subsidiary                      | Country      of Incorporation |
|---------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| Galveston      Navigation Inc.  | Marshall      Islands         |
| Beaumont      Navigation Inc.   | Marshall      Islands         |
| Carrolton      Navigation Inc.  | Marshall      Islands         |
| Decatur      Navigation Inc.    | Marshall      Islands         |
| Elgin      Navigation Inc.      | Marshall      Islands         |
| Fulton      Navigation Inc.     | Marshall      Islands         |
| Orange      Navigation Inc.     | Marshall      Islands         |
| Baytown      Navigation Inc.    | Marshall      Islands         |
| Tyler      Navigation Inc.      | Marshall      Islands         |
| Pasedena      Navigation Inc.   | Marshall      Islands         |
| Sunray      Navigation Inc.     | Marshall      Islands         |
| Nederland      Navigation Inc.  | Marshall      Islands         |
| Lakeview      Navigation Inc.   | Marshall      Islands         |
| Abilene      Navigation Inc.    | Marshall      Islands         |
| Hamilton      Navigation Inc.   | Marshall      Islands         |
| Lemanville      Navigation Inc. | Marshall      Islands         |
| Turneville      Navigation Inc. | Marshall      Islands         |
| Omega      Management Inc.      | Marshall      Islands         |
| Omega      Navigation (USA) LLC | USA                           |
|                            |                          |
|                            |                          |
|                            |                          |
|                            |                          |
|                            |                          |
|                            |                          |
|                            |                          |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0170 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NED BRYANT GARDNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 6, 202 3 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 29 2023

09/29/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0170
Exhibit 12
                              BellSouth Corporation
                    Computation Of Earnings To Fixed Charges
                              (Dollars In Millions)


                                                             For the Nine Months
                                                             Ended September 30,
 Earnings
                                                              2003        2004
 Income from continuing operations before
   provision for income taxes, minority
   interest, discontinued operations, and
   cumulative effect of accounting change                   $4,139      $4,545

 Equity in (earnings) losses of
   unconsolidated affiliates                                  (427)       (328)

 Fixed Charges                                                 812         728

 Distributed income of equity affiliates                         4          --

 Interest capitalized                                           (6)         (4)

                                                           ---------   ---------
    Income, as adjusted                                     $4,522      $4,941
                                                           ---------   ---------


 Fixed Charges

 Interest expense                                            $ 725       $ 646

 Interest capitalized                                            6           4

 Portion of rental expense representative
   of interest factor                                           81          78

                                                            --------   ---------
    Fixed Charges                                            $ 812       $ 728
                                                            --------   ---------



                                                            --------   ---------
 Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                           5.57        6.79
                                                            ========   =========
§ 618.828 Appeals and hearings. ( a ) *Applicable State law.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a determination or redetermination under this part (other than a determination on the eligibility of a group of workers under subpart B of this part, which is subject to review by the USCIT) is subject to review in the same manner and to the same extent as determinations and redeterminations under the applicable State law, and only in that manner and to that extent. Proceedings for review of a determination or redetermination may be consolidated or joined with proceedings for review of other determinations or redeterminations under the applicable State law where convenient or necessary. The right of appeal and opportunity for fair hearing for these proceedings must be consistent with section 303(a)(1) and (3) of SSA (42 U.S.C. 503(a)(1) and (3)).
( b ) *Allegations of discrimination.* Complaints alleging that a determination or redetermination under this part violates applicable Federal nondiscrimination laws administered by the U.S. Department of Labor must be handled in accordance with the procedures of 29 CFR parts 31, 32, 35, 36, and 38, as applicable, and as provided in § 618.894 (nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements).
( c ) *Appeals promptness.* Appeals under paragraph (a) of this section must be decided with a degree of promptness meeting the Department's “Standard for Appeals Promptness—Unemployment Compensation” (20 CFR part 650). Any provisions of the applicable State law for advancement or priority of UI cases on judicial calendars, or other provisions intended to provide for prompt payment of UI when due, must apply equally to proceedings involving eligibility for TAA Program benefits and services under this part.
( d ) *Retroactivity.* In the case of a redetermination or decision reversing a training denial, the redetermination or decision must be given effect retroactively to the date of issuance of the determination that was subsequently reversed. However, no costs of training may be paid unless such costs actually were incurred for training in which the individual participated. In addition, if a TRA application was filed and denied as a result of the training denial, TRA may only be paid with respect to any week during which the individual was actually participating in the training.
Exhibit
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-128936 on Form S-8 and Post Effective Amendment No. 2 to Registration
Statement No. 333-155758 on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 1, 2010,
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Genco Shipping &
Trading Limited and subsidiaries (the “Company”) and the effectiveness of the
Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2009.











/s/
      DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPNew
      York, New YorkMarch
      1, 2010
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 ELEVATION

 252.57

 252.50

 252.44

 252.53

 252.46

 252.39

 252.52

 252.39

 252.55

 252.53

 252.50

 252.50

 252.55

 252.34

 252.43

 249.45

 245.98

 242.44

 239.60

 239.64

 239.47

 239.52

 239.47

 239.44

 239.38

 239.35

 239.34

 239.32

 239.20

 239.22

 3,958

 3,924

 3,894

 3,938

 3,904

 3,869

 3,933

 3,869

 3,948

 3,938

 3,924

 3,924

 3,948

 3,844

 3,889

 2,621

 1,577

 839

 422

 427

 406

 412

 406

 403

 396

 392

 391

 388

 374

 376

STORAGE

+79

-34

-30

+44

-34

-35

+64

-64

+79

-10

-14

+0

+24

-104

+45

-1,268

-1,044

-738

-417

+5

-21

+6

-6

-3

-7

-4

-1

-3

-14

+2

CHANGE

 551

 493

 415

 397

 352

 419

 455

 467

 423

 320

 275

 251

 340

 366

 340

 268

 112

 148

 306

 271

 273

 377

 252

 257

 210

 285

 177

 223

 272

 274

 10,710

 10,590

 10,830

 10,830

 10,590

 10,590

 10,830

 9,870

 10,470

 10,470

 9,870

 10,230

 10,230

 9,030

 9,630

 9,630

 9,630

 9,630

 9,330

 9,300

 9,000

 9,000

 8,850

 9,290

 8,780

 8,700

 9,000

 8,650

 8,250

 8,250

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2006 RED BLUFF DIVERSION RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: December 20, 2006

IN LAKE

CANAL

 ACRE-FEET

TOTALS -3,503 9,569 290,060

ACRE-FEET -3,503 18,980 575,334

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 596,768

 3,879

RELEASE

RIVER

CORNING TO SACTO

CANAL

RELEASE C.F.S.

TEHAMA

COLUSA

 50

 53

 41

 39

 41

 43

 53

 48

 48

 40

 40

 43

 54

 38

 39

 38

 46

 34

 51

 39

 30

 36

 49

 51

 25

 12

 52

 45

 33

 26

 1,237

 2,454

CORNING CANAL 2,454

TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL 18,980

TO SACTO RIVER 575,334

Table 9
497 P.2d 742

#### George TILL and Ken Gaston, Petitioners, v. Franklin JONES, Commissioner of Revenue, State of New Mexico, Respondent.

No. 9477.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

May 24, 1972.

Further ordered that the record in Court of Appeals Cause Nos. 781 and 782, 83 N.M. 743, 497 P.2d 745, be and the same is hereby returned to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 This is notice that on March 1, 2012, Penick Corporation, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances: Drug
ScheduleCoca Leaves (9040)
IIRaw Opium (9600)
IIPoppy Straw (9650)
IIConcentrate of Poppy Straw (9670)
II
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to manufacture bulk controlled substance intermediates for sale to its customers. Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417(2007). As noted in a previous notice published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on September 23, 1975, 40 FR 43745, all applicants for registration to import a basic class of any controlled substance in schedule I or II are, and will continue to be, required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(a); 21 U.S.C. 823(a); and 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are satisfied. Dated: April 17, 2012. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2012-10039 Filed 4-25-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
**Exhibit 13.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION**

**1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Sundance Energy Australia Limited (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”), I, Cathy L. Anderson, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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.

 
| Date:  May 15,   2015 |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |   |
|                                 |   |
| /s/   Cathy L. Anderson              |   |
| Cathy   L. Anderson                  |   |
| Chief   Financial Officer            |   |
| (Principal   Financial Officer)      |   |

 

----
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00072- CV Ca l- Te x P r ot e c tiveCo at ing s, Inc ., App e lla nt

v. Gr ound s Control of Texas, L.P., Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COM AL COUNTY , 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C2002- 0453 C, HO NORAB LE JACK H . ROB ISO N, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt C a l- Te x Pro te c tiv e Coatin g s f ile d a n uno pp os e d mo tio n to dis mis s it s a pp e a l a dv isi ngthat th e partie s h ave se ttl e d th e on ly c la im i nv olv e d in

the a pp e a l. T he a

pp e a l is dis mis se d a

nd c os ts a re a sse sse d a g a ins t th e pa rt y inc ur ri ngthe m.

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: Mar ch 29, 20052