alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 61.200 Entitlement to benefits. ( a ) Compensation under section 101(a) of the Act is payable for injury or death due to a war-risk hazard of an employee listed in § 61.1(a), whether or not the person was engaged in the course of his or her employment at the time of the injury.
( b ) Compensation under this subpart is paid under the provisions of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 8101 *et seq.*), except that the determination of beneficiaries and the computation of compensation are made in accordance with sections 6, 8, 9, and 10 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 *et seq.*).
( c ) The Office may not approve a claim for compensation if any of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The employee resides at or in the vicinity of the place of employment, does not live there solely due to the exigencies of the employment, and is injured outside the course of the employment.
( 2 ) The claim is filed due to the injury or death of a prisoner of war detained or utilized by the United States.
( 3 ) The person seeking benefits recovers or receives workers' compensation benefits from any other source for the same injury or death.
( 4 ) The person seeking benefits is a national of a foreign country and is entitled to compensation benefits from that or any other foreign country on account of the same injury or death.
( 5 ) The employee is convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction of any subversive act against the United States or any of its allies.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41091

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANGEL MONDRAGON GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:12-CR-370-1

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We granted appellant Angel Mondragon Garcia’s motion for summary 

disposition and affirmed, United States v. Mondragon Garcia, 539 F. App’x 345

(5th Cir. 2013), because Mondragon Garcia’s challenge to the denial of an 

additional one-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) was foreclosed by 

United States v. Newson, 515 F.3d 374, 377-78 (5th Cir. 2008). The Supreme 

* 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

June 10, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 12-41091 Document: 00512658014 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2014
No. 12-41091

Court vacated and remanded “for further consideration in light of the position 

asserted by the Solicitor General.” Garcia v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1539 

(2014). 

Amendment 775 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which 

became effective November 1, 2013, after the decision by this court, provides 

that the government should not withhold the additional one-level reduction 

under § 3E1.1(b) based on interests not identified in the guideline, such as 

whether the defendant agrees to waive the right to appeal. U.S.S.G. Manual, 

Supp. to App. C, Amendment 775, at 43-46 (2013). In United States v. Villegas 

Palacios, No. 13-40153, 2014 WL 2119096, at *1 (5th Cir. May 21, 2014), we 

applied Amendment 775 to a case on direct appeal in which the error was 

preserved and the government conceded error. The panel announced that

the other judges on the Court have reviewed this opinion, and all 

active judges have assented. The Court en banc therefore 

concludes Newson—to the extent it may constrain us from 

applying Amendment 775 to cases pending on direct appeal under 

our rule of orderliness—is abrogated in light of Amendment 775.

Id. n.1.

In light of the Supreme Court’s order and Villegas Palacios, the 

judgment is VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing. 

2

 Case: 12-41091 Document: 00512658014 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2014
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION**




Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
      Code)




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Key Hospitality Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware
      corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officers’ knowledge,
      that:




The
      Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Form 10-KSB”) of
      the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form
      10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
              March 20, 2006
            
            /s/ Jeffrey
              S. DavidsonJeffrey
              S. DavidsonChief
              Executive Officer


Dated:
              March 20, 2006
            
            /s/ Udi
              ToledanoUdi
              ToledanoPresident




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      by
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

 409

 457

 533

 561

 514

 361

 356

 342

 411

 354

 337

 360

 326

 373

 441

 482

 578

 649

 647

 463

 358

 365

 351

 431

 442

 476

 503

 546

 535

 692

 708

 168

 181

 181

 175

 169

 167

 165

 157

 157

 169

 170

 175

 168

 163

 171

 180

 171

 172

 176

 175

 162

 158

 169

 157

 173

 173

 176

 181

 169

 182

 170

 273

 288

 294

 303

 289

 255

 252

 254

 277

 267

 267

 259

 250

 249

 270

 283

 305

 343

 357

 316

 274

 260

 265

 275

 290

 300

 320

 306

 312

 351

 340

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 4, 2008

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
#### § 670.610 When are students authorized to take leaves of absence from their Job Corps centers?

Job Corps students are eligible for annual leaves, emergency leaves and other types of leaves of absence from their assigned centers according to criteria and requirements issued by the Secretary. Center operators and other service providers must account for student leave according to procedures issued by the Secretary.
# Table A1

# Table A2
(No. 6504

#### Diana Ratkovich, A Minor by Her Father, John Ratkovich, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed January 9, 1973.*

John Ratkovich, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Edward L. S. Arkema, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
§ 670.950 What are the financial management responsibilities of Job Corps center operators and other service providers? ( a ) Center operators and other service providers must manage Job Corps funds using financial management information systems that meet the specifications and requirements of the Secretary.
( b ) These financial management systems must: ( 1 ) Provide accurate, complete, and current disclosures of the costs of their Job Corps activities;
( 2 ) Ensure that expenditures of funds are necessary, reasonable, allocable and allowable in accordance with applicable cost principles;
( 3 ) Use account structures specified by the Secretary;
( 4 ) Ensure the ability to comply with cost reporting requirements and procedures issued by the Secretary; and
( 5 ) Maintain sufficient cost data for effective planning, monitoring, and evaluation of program activities and for determining the allowability of reported costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1



             CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                  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 Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of First
Keystone Corporation (the "Corporation") for the period ended March
31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, J. Gerald Bazewicz, President and CEO, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 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 Corporation as of and for the period
        covered by the Report.



                                  /s/ J. Gerald Bazewicz
                                  J. Gerald Bazewicz
                                  President and CEO


May 11, 2006


                                25
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         202,029
<SECURITIES>                                   143,444
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                   207,634
<INVENTORY>                                     15,144
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               341,261
<PP&E>                                       2,414,051
<DEPRECIATION>                                 640,659
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,286,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          204,008
<BONDS>                                      1,723,960
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     357,548
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,286,506
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               627,054
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  404,593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             163,226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    80,327
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 655

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

#### § 655.160 Determinations.

Except as otherwise noted in this section, the CO will make a determination either to grant or deny the *Application for Temporary Employment Certification* not later than 30 calendar days before the first date of need identified in the *Application for Temporary Employment Certification.* An *Application for Temporary Employment Certification* that is modified under § 655.142 or that otherwise does not meet the requirements for certification in this subpart is not subject to the 30-day timeframe for certification.
#### § 668.420 What are the planning requirements for receiving supplemental youth services funding?

Beginning with PY 2000, eligible INA grantees must describe the supplemental youth services which they intend to provide in their Two Year Plan (described more fully in §§ 668.710 and 668.720). This Plan includes the target population the grantee intends to serve, for example, drop-outs, juvenile offenders, and/or college students. It also includes the performance measures/standards to be utilized to measure program progress.
##### 



th
  
 RE: Auger Cast Piling required for support of the Grain Silos; E. Energy Adams, LLC
@ Adams, NE.
   INCLUSIONS/SCOPE OF WORK
 1.
    
    Provide design/field engineering, and construction drawings.2.
    
    Part time geo-technical observation and grout testing.3.
    
    Auger cast piling required for support of grain storage slipform silos.4.
    
    Earthwork for spoil removal (equipment and labor) to an onsite stock pile location.5.
    
    Supply and installation of reinforcement required for auger cast piling.6.
    
    McC Inc. will provide all tools, labor, cranes, restrooms and equipment necessary to complete this project.
 EXCLUSIONS
  CLARIFICATIONS
 
    
    We assume the construction area will be rough graded and leveled to 12 below the
DDG and Receiving building finish floor elevation prior to starting our work.
 PRICING
 Three Hundred Fifty Five Thousand Two Hundred Fifty ($355,250.00) dollars
 
 **
    
    This work will require 14 working days. McC Inc. contract for 1stgrind with Fagen Inc will then be July 16, 2007.




---



##### 



th
 ALTERNATIVE PRICING
 To
keep the existing schedule without adding (14) days for the
Auger-Cast piling Add: $62,250.00
 Terms of Payment:
    
    10% down at signing of contract; progressive payments every month on the15thduring construction, with 5% retainage to be paid 30 days afterstart-up.
     
  ACCEPTANCE
OF PROPOSAL  The above prices,Specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are
    
    Signature:
    
    /s/ Mark SchmitHereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work asSpecified.Date of Acceptance:            10/3/06
    
    Cust PO#:




---



##### 



th
 ALTERNATIVE PRICING
  Terms of Payment:
    
    10% down at signing of contract; progressive payments every month on the15thduring construction, with 5% retainage to be paid 30 days afterstart-up.
     
  ACCEPTANCE
OF PROPOSAL  The above prices,Specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are
    
    Signature:
    
    /s/ Jack L. Alderman, Pres.Hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work asSpecified.Date of Acceptance:
    
    Cust PO#:
#### Rosa Flaitz, by Guardian, etc., Respondent, v. Elmira, Corning and Waverly Railway, Appellant.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation filed.
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

37 38 39 40 41



### ★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 1000 1500 2000 1000 18 12 06 00 05/28 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 28 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
#### John Otis SPAIN, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 15169.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Sept. 9, 1954.

Clyde S. Cahill, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Harry Richards, U. S. Atty., and Robert C. Tucker, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court docketed and dismissed for want of prosecution, on motion of appellee.
#### Malcohn Ross Matheson, as Substituted Trustee, etc., Plaintiff, v. Ottilie Mente and Others, Defendants.

Motion to dismiss appeal from the order of the Special Term (Mr. Justice Scudder) denied, without prejudice to an application to renew at the May term of the court. Motion to dismiss appeal from the order of the Special Term (Mr. Justice Kelly) denied. Present—Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6843
ROBERT A. REED, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THE STATE OF MARYLAND; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA01-600-PJM) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert A. Reed, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert A. Reed seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &Supp. 2000) as untimely. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Reed v. Maryland , No. CA-01-600-PJM (D. Md. Apr. 11, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 ELEV

 889.77

 889.79

 890.37

 891.42

 892.65

 895.15

 896.34

 897.44

 898.43

 900.24

 910.80

 915.77

 918.25

 920.13

 921.46

 922.78

 925.04

 927.57

 931.53

 935.28

 938.34

 940.36

 942.08

 943.51

 944.83

 945.81

 946.77

 947.63

 948.30

 948.90

 949.41

 1,049.1

 1,049.4

 1,055.9

 1,067.7

 1,081.7

 1,110.5

 1,124.4

 1,137.3

 1,149.1

 1,170.8

 1,302.2

 1,367.4

 1,400.9

 1,426.6

 1,444.9

 1,463.2

 1,494.9

 1,531.0

 1,588.7

 1,644.8

 1,691.5

 1,722.8

 1,749.7

 1,772.2

 1,793.2

 1,808.9

 1,824.3

 1,838.2

 1,849.1

 1,858.9

 1,867.3

STORAGE

+1.2

+0.2

+6.5

+11.8

+14.0

+28.8

+13.9

+13.0

+11.8

+21.7

+131.4

+65.3

+33.4

+25.7

+18.3

+18.3

+31.7

+36.1

+57.7

+56.0

+46.8

+31.3

+26.8

+22.5

+21.0

+15.7

+15.5

+13.9

+10.9

+9.8

+8.4

CHANGE

 4,205

 3,483

 5,629

 9,057

 10,188

 16,658

 9,009

 9,228

 8,708

 11,707

 66,542

 33,631

 18,589

 13,742

 10,751

 11,132

 18,171

 18,923

 29,322

 29,529

 25,372

 17,930

 15,285

 11,908

 11,429

 9,570

 9,209

 8,419

 7,635

 7,545

 6,962

INFLOW

 3,566

 3,348

 2,346

 3,089

 3,132

 2,135

 1,989

 2,685

 2,767

 763

 296

 710

 1,719

 765

 1,510

 1,887

 2,167

 712

 214

 1,252

 1,780

 2,119

 1,739

 531

 833

 1,638

 1,345

 1,384

 2,135

 2,568

 2,705

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

 0

 0

SPILL

 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

 0

 0

OUTLET

 20

 23

 7

 3

 10

 3

 10

 10

 17

 14

 4

 8

 20

 20

 16

 12

 8

 8

 9

 22

 23

 18

 23

 14

 24

 24

 71

 14

 5

 39

 39

C.F.S.

 .06

 .07

 .02

 .01

 .03

 .01

 .03

 .03

 .05

 .04

 .01

 .02

 .05

 .05

 .04

 .03

 .02

 .02

 .02

 .05

 .05

 .04

 .05

 .03

 .05

 .05

 .15

 .03

 .01

 .08

 .08

INCHES

 .23

 .07

 .77

 1.22

 .47

 1.35

 .00

 .37

 .97

 .11

 6.09

 2.20

 .20

 .00

 .21

 1.02

 2.01

 1.01

 2.20

 .92

 1.31

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .12

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2014 SHASTA LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: January 5, 2015

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

RIVER

TOTALS +819.4 469,468 55,829 0 0 538 1.28 22.87

ACRE-FEET +819,400 931,190 110,737 0 0 1,067

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 110,737

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 110,737

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 22.87

JULY 1, 2014 35.84

 1,047.9

Table 3
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Martha Powell, Appellant, v. The Superintendent of the New York State Reformatory for Women, etc., Respondent.

Motion denied. Present—Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
#### § 641.210 What services, in addition to the applicable career services, must SCSEP grantees and sub-recipients provide through the One-Stop delivery system?

In addition to providing career services, as defined at 20 CFR 678.430, SCSEP grantees and sub-recipients must make arrangements through the One-Stop delivery system to provide eligible and ineligible individuals with referrals to WIOA career and training services and access to other activities and programs carried out by other One-Stop partners.
§ 604.3 Able and available requirement—general principles. ( a ) A State may pay UC only to an individual who is able to work and available for work for the week for which UC is claimed.
( b ) Whether an individual is able to work and available for work under paragraph (a) of this section must be tested by determining whether the individual is offering services for which a labor market exists. This requirement does not mean that job vacancies must exist, only that, at a minimum, the type of services the individual is able and available to perform is generally performed in the labor market. The State must determine the geographical scope of the labor market for an individual under its UC law.
( c ) The requirement that an individual be able to work and available for work applies only to the week of unemployment for which UC is claimed. It does not apply to the reasons for the individual's separation from employment, although the separation may indicate the individual was not able to work or available for work during the week the separation occurred. This Part does not address the authority of States to impose disqualifications with respect to separations. This Part does not limit the States' ability to impose additional able and available requirements that are consistent with applicable Federal laws.